Proposal about content-size and hash

[Martin Keegan]

On Tue, 3 Nov 2020, Ali Fardan wrote:

> If so many people are not satisfied with the protocol as is without an
> insane amount of features, why don't you move to a different protocol
> that satisfies your needs?  Or rather, define your own, the only reason

The problem, as I see it, is that some people want there *not* to be a 
simple protocol, and will propose modifications to make it extensible. The 
minimalist attitude is perceived, wrongly, by some people as 
self-righteous and worthy of being taken down a peg or two; there are also 
other reasons for wanting to drive up the cost of information sharing 
online.

If the lack of features in Gemini means people go off and use some other, 
possibly new or incompatible, protocol, that's not too much of a problem, 
and more people's preferences will be satisfied. It may be that those who 
want a minimalist protocol should spec up a non-minimalist protocol and 
implement that, and then tell everyone who wants Gemini not to be 
minimalist to go and use this other protocol. In the presence of a viable 
alternative protocol to Gemini, the remaining arguments in favour of 
extending Gemini would much more obviously be in bad faith.

On the other hand, if eventually Solderpunk gives in and makes Gemini 
extensible, then the supporters of a minimalist protocol will just go and 
make their own new protocol and the cycle of agitation against minimalism 
will repeat, so one's just competing for the Gemini name and mindshare.

Mk

-- 
Martin Keegan, @mk270, https://mk.ucant.org/