I like that, it’s catchy
Last country energy consumption comparison I heard was Sweden.
I remember when I started doing talks to promote our own project Scotcoin* I used to firstly compare the energy consumption of Bitcoin to that of the
“entire nation of Cambodia, A 3rd-world country but not THAT 3rd-world”
Then as time went by, the script changed to Slovenia, then Estonia and then Ireland.
*about to be reborn - watch this space in a month or two.
Dont google it, its embarrassing and I wish to reiterate I had nothing to do with that last incarnation of that website. It wisny me.
Don’t forget “improves upon” blockchain. Really it’s something else [better] entirely, but that quoted phrase may be useful in some instances.
I always preferred the term ‘outclasses’.
“goes beyond” is clearly the best wording here
I think you need to explicitly mention the reduced energy usage compared to blockchain. Sustainability is a word thats thrown around and can mean different things to different people. Energy usage is the primary criticism people express to me when i talk about crypto. It’s also something that everyone can relate to because we all pay power bills. I would reword to:
Because the Safe Network does not run on a blockchain, it avoids many of the capacity, energy usage and throughput / transaction limitations that hinder current blockchain-based decentralized solutions.
I’d to try cut down on superfluous wording, and get as much of the layman explanation at the beginning of the article as possible.
@Sotros25 Do you mind if I share this text /post on other forums?
Great work btw.
Thanks! If possible, please share as a link to get more people to visit / join the forum
Some people care a lot about getting certain things right, like terminology. Like, me for instance, commenting because this is something I can actually voice an opinion on rather than some encryption-based topic that I don’t understand. Even if there were ill intent, it’s generally better to tackle the argument than to deflect it in a personal way.
Maybe “augmentation of the internet”? Probably not the best term as I haven’t spent any serious amount of time thinking about it, but based on my understanding of the network, I still prefer it because it seems honest. ‘Augmentation’ correctly implies that not every layer is substituted, acknowledges the value of the internet, and doesn’t imply that the original will be made redundant.