5 ms·

Here's my case. I have problems trusting any centralised cloud service out there that is significant for my privacy. I have problems with Pocket, because it kno

Here's my case. I have problems trusting any centralised cloud service out there that is significant for my privacy. I have problems with Pocket, because it knows what I read. If data would be stored on the decentralized nodes and accessible over the smart contracts, my zen would be way closer.

alanfalcon 8y ago
Is IPFS for you?
kevinwang 8y ago
But wouldn't that change your data being readable by Pocket to your data being readable by everyone? I fail to see how that's better. And if encryption is the solution, there could be encrypted centralized or decentralized apps.
- crispyporkbites 8y ago
  Readable by everyone != decentralised / blockchain Blockchain code literally runs in an open source, open memory environment. Which means you can guarantee the execution of code without interference.
  - roywiggins 8y ago
    But that non-interference comes from exposing all the information it operates on to the public. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to maintain a consensus. (if you encrypt your data, then nobody else can see it, but you can't do anything with it on the chain and you might as well store it in S3 or wherever)
    - zodiac 8y ago
      Technically, fully homomorphic encryption exists (and may someday be practical)
      - kevinwang 8y ago
        But still, you could have a centralized service that involves client-side (potentially homomorphic) encryption and stores (and in the case of homomorphic encryption, does operations with) the data on their servers. So that shouldn't give a privacy benefit from blockchain over centralized servers.
        zodiac 8y ago
        You would get a privacy benefit in the sense that the computation provider would not learn anything about the data you gave them. However you are right that centralized computation providers are equally constrained (ie don't learn anything) as blockchains in this regard.
sp527 8y ago
>Here's my case. I have problems trusting any centralised cloud service out there that is significant for my privacy. I have problems with Pocket, because it knows what I read. If data would be stored on the decentralized nodes and accessible over the smart contracts, my zen would be way closer. The problem is that most users don't agree with you. In fact, most users don't know enough to know to care about this. Those that do very often favor convenience above all else. Blockchains don't solve the problem any better than existing centralized providers; in fact, they can literally only do worse on any dimension most users care about.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

alanfalcon 8y ago

Is IPFS for you?

kevinwang 8y ago

But wouldn't that change your data being readable by Pocket to your data being readable by everyone? I fail to see how that's better. And if encryption is the solution, there could be encrypted centralized or decentralized apps.

crispyporkbites 8y ago
Readable by everyone != decentralised / blockchain Blockchain code literally runs in an open source, open memory environment. Which means you can guarantee the execution of code without interference.
- roywiggins 8y ago
  But that non-interference comes from exposing all the information it operates on to the public. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to maintain a consensus. (if you encrypt your data, then nobody else can see it, but you can't do anything with it on the chain and you might as well store it in S3 or wherever)
  - zodiac 8y ago
    Technically, fully homomorphic encryption exists (and may someday be practical)
    - kevinwang 8y ago
      But still, you could have a centralized service that involves client-side (potentially homomorphic) encryption and stores (and in the case of homomorphic encryption, does operations with) the data on their servers. So that shouldn't give a privacy benefit from blockchain over centralized servers.
      - zodiac 8y ago
        You would get a privacy benefit in the sense that the computation provider would not learn anything about the data you gave them. However you are right that centralized computation providers are equally constrained (ie don't learn anything) as blockchains in this regard.

sp527 8y ago

>Here's my case. I have problems trusting any centralised cloud service out there that is significant for my privacy. I have problems with Pocket, because it knows what I read. If data would be stored on the decentralized nodes and accessible over the smart contracts, my zen would be way closer. The problem is that most users don't agree with you. In fact, most users don't know enough to know to care about this. Those that do very often favor convenience above all else. Blockchains don't solve the problem any better than existing centralized providers; in fact, they can literally only do worse on any dimension most users care about.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]