I was under the impression you were referring to the Podcasting 2.0 <-> Lightning monetization history. (Podcasting 2.0 includes a few Lightning-related extensions as far as I understand.)
My point stands also if you weren't: Podcasting 2.0 did not invent chapter markers, it only added them to the RSS feed.
> Anything that is crypto-adjacent or sometimes even "not actively opposing" cryptocurrencies is heavily disapproved of here. I get some of it, and agree with much of it, but it always goes too far. Always leads to conclusions not grounded in truth.
I can't deny that I'm coming into crypto-adjacent discussions with some preconceptions, even though I'm sympathetic to many of the ideas, and don't treat the ecosystem as a monolith. There are well-intentioned folks in it, but also libertarian fanatics, corporate short-term-profit maximizers, social media grifters... I really wouldn't say that only crypto critics are at fault for the lack of grounding in truth. (And I say that as somebody that's been somewhat involved with it for a very long time.)
If you're one of the remaining well-intentioned folks in what has largely become a sea of grift, I do feel for you, but I also understand where people here are coming from.
Ok, yes, that is true (some podcasting 2.0 features are re-implementations, but there is much more and I wouldn't call them "crypto-people", that's just a term that paints those people in a bad light, especially here on HN, where "crypto" is a loaded term.
Yes part of podcasting 2.0 is lightning payments (which address a lot of issues people here have with crypto and has the potential to support indi devs and creators more fairly), but I admit I played with it and it is not there (yet).
Edit: And thank you for your thoughtful answer. There are some real lunatics on the crypto side indeed.
My point stands also if you weren't: Podcasting 2.0 did not invent chapter markers, it only added them to the RSS feed.
> Anything that is crypto-adjacent or sometimes even "not actively opposing" cryptocurrencies is heavily disapproved of here. I get some of it, and agree with much of it, but it always goes too far. Always leads to conclusions not grounded in truth.
I can't deny that I'm coming into crypto-adjacent discussions with some preconceptions, even though I'm sympathetic to many of the ideas, and don't treat the ecosystem as a monolith. There are well-intentioned folks in it, but also libertarian fanatics, corporate short-term-profit maximizers, social media grifters... I really wouldn't say that only crypto critics are at fault for the lack of grounding in truth. (And I say that as somebody that's been somewhat involved with it for a very long time.)
If you're one of the remaining well-intentioned folks in what has largely become a sea of grift, I do feel for you, but I also understand where people here are coming from.