4 ms·
Immutable websites aren't an interesting idea?
by smrtinsert 5y ago
Immutable websites aren't an interesting idea?
- the_gastropod 5y agoNo. And, frankly, I'd think anyone with a half-a-brain and 30 seconds to think through the ramifications of such a terrible idea would be able to figure out why.
- GoblinSlayer 5y agoThen web.archive.org wouldn't exist.
- the_gastropod 5y agoI promise you archive.org deletes things. Child porn, copyright infringements, government secrets, etc. certainly aren't "immutably" stored.
- cableshaft 5y agoWell one thing it helps combat is link/data rot (assuming that blockchain stays up of course). Meanwhile on our current web, data is disappearing all the time. Like this recent study on the links on NYT articles: "Predictably, it found that, as time went on, links were more likely to be dead: 6 percent of links in 2018 articles were inaccessible, while a whopping 72 percent of links from 1998 were dead." https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/21/22447690/link-rot-research-new-york-times-domain-hijacking https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/21/22447690/link-rot-researc...
- danaris 5y agoBut to the best of my understanding, none of the blockchains currently in widespread use can actually store whole websites on them. They can store....links. To existing webpages. Which are still hosted exactly the same way they've always been, and subject to the same likelihood of link rot.