Just around 24 hours after Musk made his comments, more than 42,000 new users joined Bluesky, making it the biggest signup day yet for the currently invite-only platform that launched earlier this year.
Bluesky saw a total of 53,585 new signups by the end of Tuesday, September 19. The new users gained in that single day make up 5 percent of the platform’s entire user base of 1,125,499 total accounts.
The new user signups are tracked via the third-party website “Bluesky Stats.” Looking over Bluesky signup numbers on the tracker for the past month, it appears that the platform usually sees from 10,000 to 20,000 new signups per day. Bluesky has doubled its usual daily new user numbers already, with many more hours left in the day still to go.
It’s impossible to know whether Musk’s comments about charging users to post on X really played a role in this, but it almost certainly had some effect.
Until they sell that platform too and you have to grow your follower base somewhere else yet again.
Bluesky has federation in testing in a sandbox open to external developers, already interoperating with 3rd party implementations
Hahaha, no. It’s like MTProto in Telegram, but without being honest that it’s centralized.
Every single component have 3rd party implementations or an alternative which doesn’t depend on them (standard account DID lookups go through their servers but web DID is fully independent). The options he says nobody will create ALREADY EXISTS
The protocol literally doesn’t allow them to be gatekeepers.
Authentication is heavily tied to their servers
You can initialize your account with your own DID key using web DID instead of the current (technically placeholder DID) and you won’t be dependent on their servers for authentication. Especially in the federation sandbox that’s available for 3rd parties
From what you say I can approximate how it will go. First perpetual in-dev federation, then once they get enough people, they will say “not enough interest in federation” and stop development or pull the plug completely.
Except federation is already functional with 3rd party implementations. Sure it’s possible they would choose to diverge in the official implementation in a closed branch, but that would not stop the rest of the clients from working. It’s like if the biggest Mastodon instance went proprietary and shut down federation, the people who care would leave.
The main things they’re working on are moderation tools suitable for federation as well as scaling
deleted by creator
It’s not even Fediverse either. It’s their own protocol. Can’t even really federate much either.
They have federation on in their sandbox network with 3rd party clients already working, but it’s not going to talk activitypub
Non-activitypub federated protocols? Who is even the 3rd party in this instance? Nostr?
Nostr is a wildly different protocol from atprotocol and activitypub.
Activitypub is very much like email (SMTP) over http, pushing messages between servers. Atprotocol is instead using a model of a repository with profile and posts per user on federated servers along with aggregation servers (CDN-ish) and a pull model for retrieval. Nostr is a P2P protocol with “gossip nodes”
Yeah, I more I learn about this stuff I can’t see the purpose of this new protocol versus the existing ones (not to even mention all the activitypub/fediverse spinoffs too).
Account portability for one thing, with accounts being defined by the DID and repository and not server name + path you can easily switch servers
deleted by creator
They don’t use AP, so there is no federation to begin with.
deleted by creator
They don’t intend do use open protocol. And it’s more centralized than you expect.
They do have an open protocol (atprotocol) but it’s not compatible with anything existing
Yeah and also Gmail should defederate Skype.
… Wait what’s that it’s different protocols? Oh well