What disrespectful marketing. We don’t care that you use Merkle trees because that’s irrelevant. I guess I can add Fireproof to my big list of sketchy products to avoid. It’s embarrassing.

I figured the responses would be more interesting. Questions about CRDT guarantees etc.

Perhaps worth seeding the convo with a remark about finality.

While your intentions may have been around discussion, I don’t want to be marketed to when I’m trying to understand something unrelated. I have a business degree so I intimately understand that HN is technically free and it’s nice to get free eyeballs, but we are people too. I’m so much more than a credit card number, yet you’ve reduced me to a user acquisition in the most insulting way possible.

Perhaps instead of your ideas, it’s worth seeding your own personal make up with a firm statement of ethics??

Are you the kind of person who will hijack conversations to promote your product? Or do you have integrity?

Just purely out of concern for your business, do you have a cofounder who could handle marketing for you? If so, consider letting her have complete control over that function. It’s genuinely sad to see a founder squander goodwill on shitty marketing.

In founder mode, I pretty much only think about these data structures. So I am (admittedly) not that sensitive to how it comes across.

Spam would be raising the topic on unrelated posts. This is a context where I can find people who get it. The biggest single thing we need now is critical feedback on the tech from folks who understand the area. You’re right I probably should have raised the questions about mergability and finality without referencing other discussions.

Because I don’t want to spam, I didn’t link externally, just to conversation on HN. As a reader I often follow links like this because I’m here to learn about new projects and where the people who make them think they’ll be useful.

ps I emailed the address in your profile, I have a feeling you are right about something here and I want to explore.

> Spam would be raising the topic on unrelated posts.

I think you need to reread the conversation, because you did post your marketing comment while ignoring the context, making your comment unrelated.

If you want it distilled down from my perspective, it went something like this:

> Trog: Doubts about the necessity of Merkle trees. Looking for a conversation about the pros and cons of Merkle trees and double ledger accounting.

> You: Look at our product. Incidentally it uses Merkle trees, but I am not going to mention anything about their use. No mention of pros and cons of Merkle trees. No mention of double ledger accounting.

This doesn't address the question in any way except to note that you also use Merkle Trees. Do you reply to any comment mentioning TypeScript with a link to your Show HN post as well?

Sorry, but your post came off as blatant advertising. There is no need to link to your company announcement just because it benefits you.

Thanks y'all -- feedback taken. If I were saying it again I'd say something like:

Merkle proofs are rad b/c they build causal consistency into the protocol. But there are lots of ways to find agreement about the latest operation in distributed systems. I've built an engine using deterministic merge -- if anyone wants to help with lowest common ancestor algorithms it's all Apache/MIT.

While deterministic merge with an immutable storage medium is compelling, it doesn't solve the finality problem -- when is an offline peer too out-of-date to reconcile? This mirrors the transaction problem -- we all need to agree. This brings the question I'm curious about to the forefront: can a Merkle CRDT use a Calvin/Raft-like agreement protocol to provide strong finality guarantees and the ability to commit snapshots globally?

Apologies for the noise.