I do like putting 100$ every (half?) year or so in my podcast app and letting the app distribute it over everything I listen to. But that's also because I'm at an age where I have disposable income. I pay for the membership to get the ads out of my fav podcast.
It also just undermines my skepticism and dislike of the podcasts 2.0 thing, which should have been my main point.
I always warn here on HN that we should not throw the baby away with the bathwater, meaning, don't kill (or over-regulate) blockchain before it can grow into something nice (from the monster it is now). Imho these are the seeds of something nice, but it's not there yet. I can feel it coming though, because of things like Podcasting 2.0.
But again, podcasting 2.0 also enables (as you probably heard many times by now ;)) life streams right in the podcast app. It just displays a badge that your fav podcast is now life-streaming and you can participate. I think that is just really cool.
Using the blockchain again though, you can make instant donations through BTC lightning, and have your value 4 value boosts live-read as you listen. I mean, that is at least a bit cool right? The equivalent of throwing some cash... Hmm, this is going in the wrong direction again...
We should absolutely throw away the bathwater. There's no baby. I'll say it right out. Cryptocurrency should be completely banned by every country on the planet. They have no purpose that isn't outright fraud and theft. Everything described in Podcasting 2.0 can be done with regular old Web 2.0 technology, and it can be done more efficiently that way too.
Edit to those downvoting: I will gladly retract this entire comment if you can demonstrate a single real, non-fraudulent usage of blockchains. I've been asking this for years and never gotten a straight answer. Everything is always "just around the corner" but every time I look around the corner all I see is more fraud and scams. If you really think there's something salvageable here, then let blockchains live on as a theoretical research project until somebody figures it out. In the meantime, please stop encouraging the general public to put their money into this. It's irresponsible to raise money this way.
https://www.hyperledger.org/learn/case-studies
Hyperledger is a set of open-source distributed ledger related technologies, the most well-known being Fabric, which is a framework for creating blockchain networks.
The most interesting cases are S&P Global and Walmart, who use it to keep track of data for various auditing purposes. The idea is that since data on a blockchain can't be modified on a whim without that change being observed, it protects the integrity of the data being stored. Basically it is being treated as a sort of database.
Blockchain doesn't rely on crypto, crypto was implemented using blockchain. Blockchain was invented long before crypto in the early 90s at Bellcore. Crypto may emphasize transactions and combating double-spending (due to nodes being on a public network), but no one is held to crypto's use of blockchain to be blockchain. The Bitcoin paper cites both the original Bellcore paper and its follow-up discussing the use of Merkle Trees, and the Bellcore paper cites patent documents as a potential use-case. So I think what S&P Global and Walmart are doing are valid use of the technology.
Now whether or not cryptocurrency itself or the networks they run on have value is a different story. For what it's worth, one of the use-cases for Corda that I found basically advertised itself as "we are better than transacting with paper" lol.
Audit logs are not a new thing. Immutable data stores are not a new thing. This can be done in any number ways, each of them more efficient.
Moreover, it doesn't help with data entry. Yes, data cannot be modified. And still someone orders bananas and ends up with mouldy tomatoes.
> S&P Global and Walmart, who use it
I very much doubt they use it. All these "use cases" fall apart within a year or two after initial starry-eyed announcements
> Basically it is being treated as a sort of database.
Indeed. Treated like a database. When people treat Kafka as a database, those people are derided and there are entire articles on why you shouldn't treat a read-only append-only log as a database. But sure. Once it's blockchain, it's amazing and the bee's knees.
From what I can tell people who want a fixed supply currency basically just want to sit on it, wait for idiots who actually create wealth to do so and then take an undeserved cut. In other words they want to take the economy hostage for their own special interests and turn the rest of the population into debt slaves and finally reinstate feudalism.
I imagine you don't. You probably invest because you don't want to lose your purchasing power. That's all. This is what fiat system makes us do.
I just want a currency that doesn't push me to have to invest my money all the time only to keep my monetary power. That's it. Simple as that.
1. People trying to make a currency or interoperable token that they can directly or indirectly profit from
2. People trying to replace traditional object-relational databases or P2P networking with the Blockchain
Neither of those are particularly meaningful to the average person. They buy their Cherry Pepsi with a Mastercard and then listen to Podcasts on Spotify or the preinstalled iPhone app. People won't care about this stuff until it's meaningfully integrated into our lives, which is something all of these cryptocurrencies have failed to do. There is no killer app, there is no data revolution. People have been beating this decentralization drum for decades, and nothing happened. If you think that Cryptocurrency is going to deliver us from surveillance capitalism into another digital golden age, then you're failing to see the entire picture. Luckily, proving this thesis right is simple: we just have to wait and watch as cryptocurrency values continue to plummet, and as VC interest in Blockchain-backed technology dries up. It's looking increasingly correct with every passing day.
It's fun being starry-eyed about cool tech, but the Blockchain is a failed experiment. Our suspected fears are true: running an anonymous, distributed and append-only ledger where anyone can be an operator is a bad idea.
You answered your own question, but there's also no reason to use a "centralized website" (i.e. a 3rd-party service) if it doesn't add value. You just handle the subs yourself and provide a unique feed URL in return.
this is the traditional model of subscription-based content, but Podcasting 2.0 is based upon the "value-for-value" idea, where listeners are encouraged to willingly give money to support the show, possibly in exchange for a shout-out (akin to YouTube "Superchats") or something like that. the model sounds unintuitive, but it has sustained No Agenda since the late '00s, and other shows as well.
another podcast I tune into every week and love does the Patreon thing. they do a free, public weekly show, and an additional bonus show only for paid Patreon subscribers. I pay them through Patreon (who takes a cut) for the privilege of accessing a link to an unlisted YouTube video each week to watch the bonus show (which they explicitly refer to as a "bonus Patreon podcast" in the show itself! why intertwine your brand with Patreon like this?!). each week the bonus show gets less than 100 views, yet the cohosts go out of their way to record an additional 30-40 minute show just for these under-100 viewers. this does not seem like a sound business strategy to me compared to value-for-value.
Yes, donations are the oldest monetization model for podcasts, and this is even easier to do than authenticated feeds. Certainly, it does not require "blockchain technology".
One reason of course might be that i am listening to Jupiter Broadcast and Chris pushes this stuff hard, really annoying me with the constant talk about lightning and especially the boosts, which seem to take over half the show, because somehow he seems not to realize that the problem he has in getting regular supporters is the insane price he asks (last i looked about $2,50 per episode), but likes to give everyone several minutes of the show who sent him 20 cents.
But I think my misgivings go further than that and i am especially concerned about this taking over podcasts or even open source, because while I do understand that people need to eat, I think these two ecosystems especially thrive because so many people contribute to them without profit being their first motive. I would not ask people to do work for free, but I often find that that when profit comes into it, quality starts to suffer and ideals get lost.
Sure, lightning is in some ways similar to patreon etc. because it might still be user financed, but I feel the unpredictability of getting funds, the more attention focused model, will have similar effects on creators than other platforms with similar models do and I am mostly not fond of this.