doorman2

Unfortunately I can't play due to the HN hug of death, but I just want to say that this is a great idea. Chess is a wonderful game on its own, but having a synchronous element to the game and information asymmetry seems like it could add a lot of depth.

I find it helpful to think about blockchains as the next step in the fintech ladder. Imagine you want to represent ownership of a company, i.e. stock. You don't need electricity to do that. You can accept orders in person, record ownership in a book, issue paper certificates, etc. However, when the mainframe was invented, it became easier to track ownership electronically. Using electronic transactions also made it possible for many more people to trade and expanded the types of products offered, e.g. options became commonplace. Now, the blockchain has arrived. It does everything a mainframe at a large financial institution can do, but it opens up the platform so that more complicated transactions can happen and democratizes the platform so that anyone with a computer can write their own smart contract.

What we're seeing now is akin to the the dotcom boom / bust in the late 90s and early 2000s. A new technology has appeared on the scene which leads to two things:

1) People get ahead of themselves. In the late 90s, people could envision all the cool things the internet would unlock and tried to start businesses to realize the potential. Many of those business ideas would be viable today, but the tech wasn't there at the time leading to a lot of empty promises being sold. Today, people can envision how the blockchain will lead to the securitization of everything, but the tech isn't quite there to make the transition yet.

2) As with any optimism boom, there will always be crooks ready to separate a fool from their money.

> The NYT is in the "providing content to lure people to advertisers" business.

What does that mean? The NYT sells ads, i.e. you can pay the NYT to have your advertisement shown in the NYT. Google sells ads, i.e. you can pay Google to have your advertisement shown in Google results. The NYT and Google sell the same thing. They are competitors.

You could solve the resource starvation issue by running multiple instances of your app and binding to a port using the SO_REUSEPORT option. This will allow multiple instances of your app to use the same port.

This option is also quite good for deployments as you can have instances stop reading from the port while client traffic is still being served from other instances on the port. This works well for HTTP requests, but less so for something like gRPC.

Browsers aren't single threaded, so the ST performance isn't the end-all-be-all metric to use. JavaScript is single threaded, but the browser itself uses multiple threads. E.g. there is the main thread, which handles the user input. There is the rendering thread, which actually takes up a majority of the CPU time on a lot of websites. And then there is stuff like GPU acceleration, which makes a lot of the web performant when it wouldn't be otherwise. Of course, a server does all of these things worse than a decent laptop.

Basically, there is no free will. Think about it like this: where do your thoughts come from? They appear magically in your head. So you can choose between the set of things you think about, but the set of things you think about is out of your control.

Crypto doesn't pose an existential threat to the NYT business model like social media and search do. I.e. The NYT is in the advertising business. Google, Facebook, et al are direct competitors.

I mean they do that. Companies issue, hold, and buy back stock all the time. The difference is that JPM stock is a thing that people want and has intrinsic value as it confers ownership over the company.

Are there any out-of-the-box non-commercial licenses? I’ve wanted to do this too, but I’m too lazy to find an appropriate license.

Mighty had no hope of succeeding. I’ve built something very similar to Mighty, and the fact is that browsers are hogs, and then adding on video transcoding on top of that makes the situation completely untenable. If someone can’t afford a computer good enough to browse the web, they sure as hell can’t afford a computer that can transcode HD video at all times, which is essentially what they’d need to pay for.

It's not an excuse, just an economic reality. People prescribe value to things. The value of a typical transaction at a centralized exchange isn't worth the on-chain transaction cost. That's a problem with current blockchains, not a problem with the purchaser.

Fees are cheaper on centralized exchanges. Like with everything else in crypto, transaction fees kneecap most of the cool stuff.

I wouldn’t say tether shows that trustless decentralization is irrelevant. Rather, the existence of tether proves the need for stable coins. What was interesting about LUNA is the attempt to create an unbacked stable coin. That would have been a true innovation had it worked.