4 ms·

> 2. Why would anyone want people to post illegal material on a blockchain when it is immutable? Let's assume the culprit goes to jail, but then you have billio

by leppr 7y ago

> 2. Why would anyone want people to post illegal material on a blockchain when it is immutable? Let's assume the culprit goes to jail, but then you have billions of people now able to access illegal content, that can never be removed because it is on a blockchain Obviously he was proposing storing metadata, not the content itself. Typically this kind of system works by storing a checksum of the content, or a link to the resource in an external decentralized-but-mutable store like IPFS. The illegal files would be dropped but there would still be an undeniable record on the blockchain. I'm not defending the nonsensical use case (decentralizing the attribution part in an otherwise centrally controlled system wouldn't benefit anyone), but you might want to look more into crypto yourself if you care to learn. EDIT: As expected, anything that's not bashing crypto (preferably with unrelated arguments) rakes in downvotes. Aah the lovely HN hivemind.

dpark 7y ago
> EDIT: As expected, anything that's not bashing crypto (preferably with unrelated arguments) rakes in downvotes. Aah the lovely HN hivemind. I’m guessing you’re getting downvoted because 1) you’re assuming a lot about what this guy intended and giving him a lot of credit when he clearly didn’t understand the topic, and 2) you end with “you might want to look more into crypto yourself if you care to learn” which almost seems like trolling because it’s essentially what this guy told Wales.
- leppr 7y ago
  Thanks for the explanation but: > 1) you’re assuming a lot about what this guy intended and giving him a lot of credit when he clearly didn’t understand the topic I'll quote Daniel Krawisz's tweets with added emphasis on the points which indicate he wasn't proposing storing content on a blockchain: > It would be so cheap to record [enough information] about all @Wikipedia interactions on the $BSV blockchain [...] Key word "enough", suggesting "not all". > My point is just that because because Bitcoin transactions always leave records, someone who uploaded illegal content would leave you with more [contextual information] that you could track on the blockchain than you would have if there weren't payments associated with their interactions. "contextual information" == "metadata" > 2) you end with “you might want to look more into crypto yourself if you care to learn” which almost seems like trolling because it’s essentially what this guy told Wales. That was more about noticing the irony in GP chastising the tweeter for their ignorance and then showing seemingly greater ignorance about the same topic.
  - dpark 7y ago
    GP perhaps misunderstood the proposal. That doesn’t mean their ignorance is greater. I think the misunderstanding is quite reasonable given that the tweet was proposing a completely nonsensical plan. I think your reading of the intent is correct, but I also think this proposal was so poorly thought through that it doesn’t matter. Also, don’t use brackets for emphasis. Brackets are used editorially to replace content or leave an editorial note. Using them for emphasis makes it look like you actually changed the core of the quote. And they make it harder to read.
gowld 7y ago
Your edit is against the HN etiquette guidelines.
- leppr 7y ago
  There's no dedicated place to discuss meta-topics in here, and I feel the virulent anti-blockchain sentiment on HN is more detrimental to the quality of discussion than my small one-liner complaint at the end of an on-topic explanatory comment.
  - dpark 7y ago
    Nope. If you believe HN is anti-blockchain and this is worth discussing, then create a new post or a dedicated comment in a relevant thread about it. You weren’t starting a conversation about this perceived bias. You were just whining about downvotes.

by leppr 7y ago

dpark 7y ago

> EDIT: As expected, anything that's not bashing crypto (preferably with unrelated arguments) rakes in downvotes. Aah the lovely HN hivemind. I’m guessing you’re getting downvoted because 1) you’re assuming a lot about what this guy intended and giving him a lot of credit when he clearly didn’t understand the topic, and 2) you end with “you might want to look more into crypto yourself if you care to learn” which almost seems like trolling because it’s essentially what this guy told Wales.

leppr 7y ago
Thanks for the explanation but: > 1) you’re assuming a lot about what this guy intended and giving him a lot of credit when he clearly didn’t understand the topic I'll quote Daniel Krawisz's tweets with added emphasis on the points which indicate he wasn't proposing storing content on a blockchain: > It would be so cheap to record [enough information] about all @Wikipedia interactions on the $BSV blockchain [...] Key word "enough", suggesting "not all". > My point is just that because because Bitcoin transactions always leave records, someone who uploaded illegal content would leave you with more [contextual information] that you could track on the blockchain than you would have if there weren't payments associated with their interactions. "contextual information" == "metadata" > 2) you end with “you might want to look more into crypto yourself if you care to learn” which almost seems like trolling because it’s essentially what this guy told Wales. That was more about noticing the irony in GP chastising the tweeter for their ignorance and then showing seemingly greater ignorance about the same topic.
- dpark 7y ago
  GP perhaps misunderstood the proposal. That doesn’t mean their ignorance is greater. I think the misunderstanding is quite reasonable given that the tweet was proposing a completely nonsensical plan. I think your reading of the intent is correct, but I also think this proposal was so poorly thought through that it doesn’t matter. Also, don’t use brackets for emphasis. Brackets are used editorially to replace content or leave an editorial note. Using them for emphasis makes it look like you actually changed the core of the quote. And they make it harder to read.

gowld 7y ago

Your edit is against the HN etiquette guidelines.

leppr 7y ago
There's no dedicated place to discuss meta-topics in here, and I feel the virulent anti-blockchain sentiment on HN is more detrimental to the quality of discussion than my small one-liner complaint at the end of an on-topic explanatory comment.
- dpark 7y ago
  Nope. If you believe HN is anti-blockchain and this is worth discussing, then create a new post or a dedicated comment in a relevant thread about it. You weren’t starting a conversation about this perceived bias. You were just whining about downvotes.