You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: My Message To DLive As They Move Away From Steem
Yeah, I mean, they're just a DApp that was utilizing the Steem Blockchain; the blockchain data regarding Dlive will always remain, but they will now just stop posting data to that blockchain and will move to the other one, as well as migrate their non-blockchain backups/storage of the videos/streams they had uploaded in the past to the new one. Their loss and a grave error on their management team's part, in my opinion.
Now I understand, is it possible to connect to two blockchains at the same time. Thinking of it , it might be a waste of resources but it might still have its benefits, access to multiple userbase and all.
Yeah, you definitely could do that; would be more resource consuming for sure, but it's absolutely feasible, and makes sense if the benefit outweighs the cost. Apps are generally a mix of non-blockchain and blockchain code, with the actions a user can take, such as uploading a video/making a post/uploading test results usually often being stored in a local database, AS WELL as the blockchain, with the blockchain usually acting as the permanent, reliable record, but the local DB being utilized for speed and efficiency.
I see, I always presumed the blockchain could only store text because of the blocksize and Dapps linked the blockchain to external storages
You can see examples of the type of stuff the steem blockchain holds here:
https://steemblockexplorer.com/block/26378428
and you can see raw transaction data related to transactions verified in a given block by choosing the link to the transaction id for any of the multiple transactions occurring on that page! :)
You could store bytecode, for example, on the steem blockchain if you wanted to, and that bytecode could be representative of video data, etc.; now, it is at a DApps discretion what they try to upload/what they do upload and how they divide resources, but the possibilities of what you store on the blockchain are limitless (with an associated cost, of course).
I think they've weigh in all the options before making such a move. whatever they were offered must have been more appealing than SMTs to them
Yeah, they definitely must have considered SMTs to some degree and maybe they just don't have a full understanding of where SMTs could/would fit in with their ecosystem. I think it is short-sighted though, personally. I hope they release a public statement, but I imagine it came down to fast money, trying to get a footing in a blockchain 'at the ground floor' and trying to use their influence to increase that blockchain's value. Power to them, but I predict it will hurt them in the long run. That said, to a degree I'm biased, being a committed Steemian.
Lol, aren't we all?😁