Open protocols win because they can improve without permission. Closed platforms die because they have to make money to keep themselves alive.

Closed platforms have to grow at all costs to capture as many users as possible. If they don't manage they will be eaten up by competition. If they do manage they inevitably crumble under their own weight. The experience has to get worse because they have to squeeze captured users & imprison them so they can't run away. They will also inevitably be captured, be it by political or corporate interests.

Open protocols can grow slowly and steadily, or occupy a certain niche until they are perfectly adapted for it. They don't have to grow at all costs, and die only if interest goes to zero. As long as two people use a protocol it is alive. Interoperability allows users to leave at any time with near-zero exit cost, meaning that clients have to compete on merit, not on capture.

With closed platforms, "capture everyone" is the name of the game. It's a finite, zero-sum game.

With open protocols, symbiosis & cooperation is a better strategy. Positive sum. Everybody wins.

nostr:nevent1qqspfk2khpc3rk6vwjvldxz7kx40zm29he9cjce6klm0akgpjzwmdjspz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7q3qsn0wdenkukak0d9dfczzeacvhkrgz92ak56egt7vdgzn8pv2wfqqxpqqqqqqzkgygs8

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

The flip side is chaos, innovation going so fast that clients will have a hard time staying on a similar wavelength.

The risk for #nostr is the tower of Babel.

I'd like to agree with this...

But then I remember Apple has a $2 trillion market cap. They got there through a closed system, dominate with all their slick network effects & Apple specific products that you need to buy with the phone.

Why?

What's the market cap of the internet?

Int.max

❤️

Each mind you.

See when you fix the money, so many questions rooted in need and furled by greed are answered since self evident.

🍻

$100 trillion?

And they’d be nothing without the internet.

Apple only sold technology as a side effect of selling a perceived lifestyle value. Its a closed system to perceive exclusivity. Slick marketing!

Genuinely like to know if you are for or against Bip300 under the banner of "Open protocols win because they can improve without permission"

Why would my stance on one particular BIP matter for anything I have said above?

It's only tangentially related, but still worth discussing. Don't you think the biggest threat comes from updates?

Can't you imagine improving without permission being a vulnerability if consensus is fooled, which is something we see routinely in politics?

This is the right answer.

words words words words words words words words words words

we need a TL;DR bot

🎚️

nostr:npub13wfgha67mdxall3gqp2hlln7tc4s03w4zqhe05v4t7fptpvnsgqs0z4fun can you summarise this note

Protocols > platforms

Is this overly reductive? My understanding is that ARPAnet started as what most would call a “closed” platform, and it later became the underpinnings of modern internet.

Seems as though things take off regardless of whether they’re open/closed if there’s good product market fit.

Open/Closed seems to matter more in terms of whether platforms can achieve/maintain scale, but even then it seems like it’s a required attribute. See examples of wildly successful closed platforms: Apple, Facebook, Twitter

A lot of “open platforms” seem like they’re putting the cart before the horse.

Sure if strong PMF sudden appears by chance for an open platform, it will be more likely to catch the wave and be successful. But it’s also in just as likely that the PMF never materializes

Good Q.

People can choose to build closed source tools, distribute them organically and incrementally improve.

Perhaps a better way to frame it would be to have a word that summarizes the following: fiat VC funded obscure growth demons from hell that scrape everyone's personal data to sell to the highest bidder and create honeypots for hackers and governments while actively trying to lobby said governments to crush their competition and create monopolies for them, which compromises their integrity and ensures they become more powerful, hellish and evil.

I guess it's easier to say closed source.

Open source helps prevent the evil loop from occuring.

Of course it's overly reductive. This is a short note, not a book.

The point is that closed for-profit entities eventually die. Open protocols have the chance of immortality.

This can be said of society's reliance on money (including bitcoin)

Interesting question with some nuances. Have e-mail protocol standards been captured by Google or not? Or is it a natural monopoly exerting power over an open protocol? What is good? What is too much? Is there something as too much?

Completely agree on that statement. Was a BSV guy, still is. In the future, maybe not.

I think nostr is the future, so is the future of apps and internet. This is truly Web3 to me, not most protocol that are being built today.

Which lightning network wallet do you recommend?