And the fee thing is why none of this will work in practice so it’s a really big negative. Who on Earth wants to be nickel and dimed across the Internet for really over expensive compute and storage?
And the fee thing is why none of this will work in practice so it’s a really big negative. Who on Earth wants to be nickel and dimed across the Internet for really over expensive compute and storage?
But:
* The fact that the moderators have access to these mechanisms would be known by all users
* The use of these mechanisms by moderators would be public. If a topic is upped by a moderator, it would be logged in the blockchain. No moderator would be able to do it secretly.
Regarding the fee, it's true that it's a big downside. To get a feasible use case, the devs would need to find a blockchain that reduces them.You're providing a solution that doesn't fit the initial requirement of a system being trust-less. So, indeed, your solution works, but as you described, it requires trust in the administrators of the website. The idea of web3 is that you wouldn't. "Trust but verify", if you want.
This could be used for Facebook or Reddit (given that they solve or attenuate the issue of fees), where people might have less trust in the administrators.
For stuff at the scale of Facebook and Reddit you'd also probably end up needing caching as the chains would be too slow so you end up needing a layer of trust anyway.