It was an easy way to get the app up and running without needing to worry about hosting, editing features and user profiles. I.e. release minimal functionality then expand if people like the app. Intention is to add other hosting options, like IPFS, at which point it will remove the dependency on GitHub and decentralise hosting.

From my understanding, they're relying on GitHub for the hosting of the blog posts themselves.

So the opposite of decentralized then. Why do crypto people love inventing new middlemen to take a cut? Oh right, they’re the middleman. That’s why.

> Why do people love inventing new middlemen to take a cut?

FTFY.

Remember many on this site are partially responsible for the ad-ridden web and a proliferation of all sorts of spyware.

OTOH, we wouldn't skewer someone for charging for yet another toy SaaS and posting a Show HN, so... let's be a little more balanced.

I don't think it's unbalanced to call BS on a service claiming to be decentralized that in fact relies on a single centralized service they do not control, twice over. (Once for auth, second for content).

Yeah, I guess it’s more accurate to call it an [almost] fully decentralised discovery service rn. Decentralised hosting should come later. The almost is for the oauth server, which can be improved by adding other independent trusted servers in a permissioned network.

Totally fair! Sorry if my initial response was perhaps a tad harsh... my bullshit-0-meter goes to a million for anything even vaguely crypto/blockchain related.

But why specifically GitHub, instead of just git? Every git hosting provider could work with this model

That’s true but I am trying to discourage people publishing other people’s work. Hence users need to link their account through oauth. Other hosts can be added.

> I am trying to discourage people publishing...

A common motivating concept for decentralized is no authoritarian oversight to deplatform you.

You're seeking editorial influence (control) from the start.

Setting aside what users want versus what you want, as a platform technology you need to be careful here.

You way want to brush up on the safe harbor laws for Internet infrastructure/pipes/hosting firms and technologies versus the lack of safe harbor for platforms with desire or ability to exercise editorial influence or control on a user or content basis.

You can navigate this, by having reasons such as "I'm not editing, but by associating users with a non-anonymous identity they will self moderate", as you've noted. You can, with such reasons, still have a bit of cake after eating it. But be careful not to veer into actual editorial control unless you're prepared for full liability.

Useful. Thanks