57 sats \ 4 replies \ @om 4 Jul 2022 \ on: Stream-for-sats: Why centralised "seed boxes" if we could pay per byte for hosting? bitcoin
Something like this has been tried with FileCoin / BitTorrent Token (careful, Justin Sun) / Sia / Storj / MaidSafe / Arweave / etc. Paying with sats to download would be better than paying with shitcoin but it seems that people really hate to pay for downloading.
I am fully confident that people can and would pay small fees for quality and reliable downloads, the kind of small fees that paying in sats enables. In fact I'd go as far as to say I'm almost certain that something roughly along the lines of what the OP has described will be developed into a viable protocol on lightning in time.
reply
Currently, you can listen to a podcast and pay by the minute in Sats.
My point was that these podcasts still have centralized hosting and therefore can be blocked in certain jurisdictions.
We haven't "fixed" the hosting part yet.
reply
i'm a big fan of what's going on with podcasting 2.0, but still think the hosting is a big target for censorship
reply
Personally, I hate paywalls, but I hate advertisements more. If free and open access to information is not sustainable, I'd rather make a micropayment that has a direct benefit rather than worry about my own data being monetized. Perhaps this would encourage people to be their own archive as well.
(I'm thinking of lib-gen/sci.hub/wikipedia/archive.org, not just torrents.)
reply