7 ms·

One of the coolest things about cryptocurrency right now is the insane amount of money being invested in decentralization. With all of the Facebook privacy issu

One of the coolest things about cryptocurrency right now is the insane amount of money being invested in decentralization. With all of the Facebook privacy issues in the news right now, decentralization offers an interesting alternative where users control their data.

adventured 9y ago
Recording something permanently into a blockchain is the opposite of users having control over their data. Blockchain does not appear to be the best way to build a decentralized system for user controlled data (such as a decentralized social network). We already figured that system out: local software, local storage, open source, local permissions & controls. Billions of people have personal computing devices now. No blockchain is needed at all, that just adds entirely unnecessary bloat. You shift the point of control back to the local device and away from the network. It is that simple, and it's how we largely used to control user data.
- gjmacd 9y ago
  Except you wouldn't use the blockchain to have control over their data", you'd use it for identity and verification. Facebook' #1 issue is fake news and Bot's. You can eliminate those problems entirely with a blockchain and smart contract that requires identity and proof of such.
  - cozicoolmail 9y ago
    How would you prove identity on a blockchain? You'd be worse equipped than Facebook. Are you suggesting some entity verify folks who sign up for this distributed social network? Make an Ehtereum contract to do it? Either way, this sounds dubious at best.
    - _betty_ 9y ago
      I think the idea is: * Website gives person a unique code to broadcast on the blockchain to prove they have control over that identity * 'Approved' services claim things publically about identities (eg age, allowed to drive) which others can use to verify claims What I don't get is: * how you know which 'approved' services to trust in the first place * why you'd want all of that information public * how it'd fix the original issue
      - JimmyAustin 9y ago
        You can treat the 'approved' services list using a whitelist, like a CA. The other issue is that none of this is necessary. If I want to prove to Person X that Gov Y says that I have property Z, why can't I just present a cryptographically signed certificate saying I have property X. You could even have a similar revocation list as CA.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        _betty_ 9y ago
        revocation seems easier with the blockchain. it just comes with too much other baggage to feel worth it.
  - wruza 9y ago
    In other news, smart contracts eliminated cancer.
  - jakelazaroff 9y ago
    > You can eliminate those problems entirely with a blockchain and smart contract that requires identity and proof of such. You don't think if the problem were that easy to solve, it would be solved already? Throwing blockchain in the mix gets Facebook nothing that it couldn't get today by just partnering with organizations can verify identities. Not to mention, the "fake news" issue isn't largely an identity issue — there are plenty of people and organizations willing to lie on their real accounts to further their sociopolitical agenda, and plenty more people who don't care if something's true so long as it confirms their existing viewpoints.
    - gjmacd 8y ago
      It's as easy as requiring identity, just like you have to for your bank account or credit card information.
    - gjmacd 8y ago
      It's as easy as requiring identity, just like you have to for your bank account or credit card information. They'd have to treat your FB account like your checking account.
- jmeyer2k 9y ago
  I didn't necessarily say blockchain. Cryptocurrency and the blockchain is the incentivization structure, not necessarily the end product. I agree. Blockchain only makes sense for things that require immutability which many applications do not. OpenBazaar is a good example of one of the applications I was thinking of.
coldtea 9y ago
>One of the coolest things about cryptocurrency right now is the insane amount of money being invested in decentralization. All this money is invested in "get-rich-quick" hopes. Few would care, or invest anything, if it was just for the decentralization aspect (case in point, all the failed aspects of decentralized social networks and other such efforts).

adventured 9y ago

Recording something permanently into a blockchain is the opposite of users having control over their data. Blockchain does not appear to be the best way to build a decentralized system for user controlled data (such as a decentralized social network). We already figured that system out: local software, local storage, open source, local permissions & controls. Billions of people have personal computing devices now. No blockchain is needed at all, that just adds entirely unnecessary bloat. You shift the point of control back to the local device and away from the network. It is that simple, and it's how we largely used to control user data.

gjmacd 9y ago
Except you wouldn't use the blockchain to have control over their data", you'd use it for identity and verification. Facebook' #1 issue is fake news and Bot's. You can eliminate those problems entirely with a blockchain and smart contract that requires identity and proof of such.
- cozicoolmail 9y ago
  How would you prove identity on a blockchain? You'd be worse equipped than Facebook. Are you suggesting some entity verify folks who sign up for this distributed social network? Make an Ehtereum contract to do it? Either way, this sounds dubious at best.
  - _betty_ 9y ago
    I think the idea is: * Website gives person a unique code to broadcast on the blockchain to prove they have control over that identity * 'Approved' services claim things publically about identities (eg age, allowed to drive) which others can use to verify claims What I don't get is: * how you know which 'approved' services to trust in the first place * why you'd want all of that information public * how it'd fix the original issue
    - JimmyAustin 9y ago
      You can treat the 'approved' services list using a whitelist, like a CA. The other issue is that none of this is necessary. If I want to prove to Person X that Gov Y says that I have property Z, why can't I just present a cryptographically signed certificate saying I have property X. You could even have a similar revocation list as CA.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - _betty_ 9y ago
        revocation seems easier with the blockchain. it just comes with too much other baggage to feel worth it.
- wruza 9y ago
  In other news, smart contracts eliminated cancer.
- jakelazaroff 9y ago
  > You can eliminate those problems entirely with a blockchain and smart contract that requires identity and proof of such. You don't think if the problem were that easy to solve, it would be solved already? Throwing blockchain in the mix gets Facebook nothing that it couldn't get today by just partnering with organizations can verify identities. Not to mention, the "fake news" issue isn't largely an identity issue — there are plenty of people and organizations willing to lie on their real accounts to further their sociopolitical agenda, and plenty more people who don't care if something's true so long as it confirms their existing viewpoints.
  - gjmacd 8y ago
    It's as easy as requiring identity, just like you have to for your bank account or credit card information.
  - gjmacd 8y ago
    It's as easy as requiring identity, just like you have to for your bank account or credit card information. They'd have to treat your FB account like your checking account.
jmeyer2k 9y ago
I didn't necessarily say blockchain. Cryptocurrency and the blockchain is the incentivization structure, not necessarily the end product. I agree. Blockchain only makes sense for things that require immutability which many applications do not. OpenBazaar is a good example of one of the applications I was thinking of.

coldtea 9y ago

>One of the coolest things about cryptocurrency right now is the insane amount of money being invested in decentralization. All this money is invested in "get-rich-quick" hopes. Few would care, or invest anything, if it was just for the decentralization aspect (case in point, all the failed aspects of decentralized social networks and other such efforts).