2 ms·

> In a decentralized system, access to the data is inherent. Well, yeah – but we already have that. It's called the Fediverse. No blockchain in sight. (In fact

> In a decentralized system, access to the data is inherent. Well, yeah – but we already have that. It's called the Fediverse. No blockchain in sight. (In fact, it predates Bitcoin.) > That is where the financial incentives come into play. Seeding will be economically incentivised. The margin for any given piece of content will be low, so there's an economic incentive to honour takedown requests, no matter how fraudulent or unenforceable, if the effort to check whether they're valid is lower than the expected average reward minus the expected average legal cost. > We have approaches now where participants only need to download arbitrarely small parts of the chain. Yet the network as a whole keeps the chain intact. We had those back in Satoshi's time, too. They work by having n centralised trusted nodes, then asking all your peers to double-check what you got from those trusted nodes. That approach is, surprisingly enough, also vulnerable to censorship! (Also, I don't really think your proposed scheme is good enough to have Satoshi's name associated with it. The innovation of Bitcoin was the coin melting pot thing, not the blockchain; Satoshi's original blockchain, which Bitcoin still mostly uses, was just a worse version of Git repositories.)

TekMol 5y ago
The margin for any given piece of content will be low Not when the financial incentive rises the rarer (less shared) a piece of content gets. This will be baked into the protocols. Arweave already has this.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  That's not feasible either. Where does the money come from?
  - TekMol 5y ago
    Where does the money to do Bitcoin mining come from? From the users who want to write to the Bitcoin blockchain. Same with the blockchains that support larger amounts of data. Whoever wants to store data pays for it. The specifics of how the storage of rare content is incentivized depends on the protocol. On Filecoin the publisher pays an ongoing fee. On Arweave it is paid upfront. The current estimate is that $10 will store a GB for 200 years. So doing a tweet on an Arweave powered social network would cost you something like $0.001 if you want your tweet to survive for 200 years.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      I think you fundamentally misunderstand Bitcoin. People don't pay to store data on the blockchain; they pay to get their transactions mined. There's no guarantee that all the blocks of the Bitcoin blockchain will stick around forever, only that there'll be a consensus as to what the current block is, and what the states of all the wallets are (since that's the only information you need to validate a new block). Keeping historical blocks around is not a property of Bitcoin. No up-front blockchain payment system can keep data around for any length of time. (There is no mechanism enforcing the storage of the data; such a mechanism cannot exist within a computer system.) “$10/GB for 200 years” are the words of a snake-oil salesperson – or, more charitably, somebody who hasn't properly read the marketing copy.
      - TekMol 5y ago
        You are confusing function and implementation. Technically "get their transactions mined" is having a piece of data written to the chain. You are correct that in Bitcoin there is less incentive to store old blocks. But in chains crafted to store data for a long time there is. I am stopping this discussion here because you are too negative (almost aggressive) for my liking. But it will be an interesting thread to read again in 20 years when all this has played out.

TekMol 5y ago

The margin for any given piece of content will be low Not when the financial incentive rises the rarer (less shared) a piece of content gets. This will be baked into the protocols. Arweave already has this.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
That's not feasible either. Where does the money come from?
- TekMol 5y ago
  Where does the money to do Bitcoin mining come from? From the users who want to write to the Bitcoin blockchain. Same with the blockchains that support larger amounts of data. Whoever wants to store data pays for it. The specifics of how the storage of rare content is incentivized depends on the protocol. On Filecoin the publisher pays an ongoing fee. On Arweave it is paid upfront. The current estimate is that $10 will store a GB for 200 years. So doing a tweet on an Arweave powered social network would cost you something like $0.001 if you want your tweet to survive for 200 years.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    I think you fundamentally misunderstand Bitcoin. People don't pay to store data on the blockchain; they pay to get their transactions mined. There's no guarantee that all the blocks of the Bitcoin blockchain will stick around forever, only that there'll be a consensus as to what the current block is, and what the states of all the wallets are (since that's the only information you need to validate a new block). Keeping historical blocks around is not a property of Bitcoin. No up-front blockchain payment system can keep data around for any length of time. (There is no mechanism enforcing the storage of the data; such a mechanism cannot exist within a computer system.) “$10/GB for 200 years” are the words of a snake-oil salesperson – or, more charitably, somebody who hasn't properly read the marketing copy.
    - TekMol 5y ago
      You are confusing function and implementation. Technically "get their transactions mined" is having a piece of data written to the chain. You are correct that in Bitcoin there is less incentive to store old blocks. But in chains crafted to store data for a long time there is. I am stopping this discussion here because you are too negative (almost aggressive) for my liking. But it will be an interesting thread to read again in 20 years when all this has played out.