The sender runs this risk in both scenarios, but I am more inclined to read the messages that pay me instead of someone else. If it was bullshit at least I was compensated for waisting my time.
Post by twetch#3375
With Boost it's your incentive to set the difficulty to exactly the level which limits information to an amount that you actually want to read. If you get paid to receive the message nobody really knows if you would really read it, despite what you say.
What the chain says
- Block
- 628 725
- Time
- 2020-04-01T07:01:21Z
- Signer
- 1Abd9yJS6mrzMmj1Ni6kjQB9GqtyaNujrm
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#3375
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1Abd9yJS6mrzMmj1Ni6kjQB9GqtyaNujrm VerifiedReplies (5)
I see your point, but I think that setting a minimum price for the messages to appear in my inbox would be more interesting.
Boost doesn't guarantee to the sender that I will read a message, so I see no difference. The miner already got the money anyway.
It doesn't guarantee. It's just something that you can expect. When you accept money, there's a reason to receive the message other than because you want to read it.
What kind of customer would be your main target for this? Companies trying to reach people to which they are not familiar?
I think boost is a great idea but the more obvious use cases for me are not email inboxes. Public sources of info is a strong one IMO
Thanks! Boost is good for eliminating any information that wastes time. It can be a spam filter or a content ranker. Twetch is going to use it as a content ranker!