4 ms·

Uhhh, either I don't get what they are trying to say or the article doesn't really say anything at all? They state the example that a bitcoin like blockchain i

by lawl 12y ago

Uhhh, either I don't get what they are trying to say or the article doesn't really say anything at all? They state the example that a bitcoin like blockchain isn't the right solution for distributed email? Well no shit? A few paragraphs before that they even say "blockchain is a distributed database", well you don't want a distributed database to deliver messages to individuals. And yes, torrent doesn't need a database everyone agrees upon to distribute Linux ISOs, obviously. And uhh, yes different protocols for different usecases are needed? What does that have to do with making more thinkgs work the way bittorrent does? Bitcoin distributes its database "like bittorrent does". And on top of that there's stuff to make everyone agree what goes into that database. For for torrent you give people a hash of the file they'll have in the end because the file doesn't change. Otherwise it's just as peer to peer, distributing the blockchain should be just as fast as torrent, agreeing upon stuff isn't. Here's a proposed protocol for distributed mail: https://bitmessage.org/wiki/Main_Page https://bitmessage.org/wiki/Main_Page Did I miss the message they were trying to convey?

hughw 12y ago
The article is only attempting to get the news out that there's an emerging movement to decentralize, and that the underlying technologies aren't baked. If you knew that already, you probably didn't get a ton out of the article.
adrusi 12y ago
> They state the example that a bitcoin like blockchain isn't the right solution for distributed email? Well no shit? A few paragraphs before that they even say "blockchain is a distributed database", well you don't want a distributed database to deliver messages to individuals. I think what they were going for was that the blockchain would act as a central point of organization for a distributed network of peers that are performing the actual task of sending messages. You're right that the article led to no conclusion though. I felt like I hadn't consumed any content. But then I kind of expected that from an article like this on Techcrunch.
forgottenpass 12y ago
Did I miss the message they were trying to convey? Nope, you had it in your first sentience, the article doesn't really say anything at all. I've recently started considering TC's coverage "tech-adjacent", a poorly-formed idea that their target audience is people who work in or with tech-heavy fields, but would never be called on to design or implement systems themselves. TC can talk tech-adjacent stuff to techies, or tech to tech-adjacent, but talking tech to techies elicits a uncanny vally-ish reaction. FWIW, I think what the article inadvertently speaks to is that the apprehensiveness to strongly centralized systems I've watched grow for at least a decade is starting to resonate with even more people.
- dmourati 12y ago
  Agree. I liked the concept of the article if not the title. From there, I was quickly disappointed. Mainly what happens to me is I look for evidence to support (or refute) an idea I'm mulling. This piece fell short in that I couldn't easily refer others to the article and expect them to come away with any increased understanding. If anyone knows of a good treatment of centralized/distributed at the service or team levels, please do share.
- existencebox 12y ago
  You'll have to forgive me for tangenting this a bit, but yours and my sister posters mulling prompted some mulling of my own. While I can certainly say I've gained the apprehensiveness you speak of, I realize I've gained it for systems at scale; centralized or otherwise. In fact, for badly engineered distributed systems, where you previously had one problem (getting modules to communicate) you now have N; (getting modules to communicate over potentially unreliable channels; which may themselves have additional hidden points of failure and varying failure modes/symptoms, etc etc). I'm being a bit high-level-hand-wavy with this, but it seems to get the point across (I hope.) My takeaway being, I'm curious if there have been people who have addressed this potential conundrum (and if you even see what I stated as a problem at all.). Data to show that systems are more/less reliable due to certain failure modes under different architectures would be nice, but that seems like a MASSIVE undertaking to do if you have any desire for the data to be meaningful; if only that it may be testing the competency of the team rather than the actual underlying relative difficulty. (although if done broadly enough maybe that would still provide useful guidance? I'm rambling at this point, but some thoughts.)
kordless 12y ago
> Did I miss the message they were trying to convey? No, they didn't do a good job of explaining it. 'We' basically failed at building easy-to-use decentralized 'services' and those who don't think it's a big deal to do so built a bunch of centralized services that were easy-to-use and also made their investors rich. Users don't understand all the ramifications of using a centralized service, so they ended up using what was easier, instead of what was better. Further, the reasons to move away from a centralized service are difficult for most people to comprehend, so there's not a way for clear intent to emerge, other than a bunch of us rattling the cage now and again trying to get others to pay attention.
wcummings 12y ago
I think you misunderstand how Bitmessage works. It doesn't use a blockchain. It's like alt.anonymous.messages, but with a Bitcoin-like broadcast protocol http://www.quora.com/What-is-Bitmessage-and-how-does-it-work http://www.quora.com/What-is-Bitmessage-and-how-does-it-work
- lawl 12y ago
  That's what I was trying to say. Different protocols for different things. You don't want a blockchain for bitmessage. I know how bitmessage works, sorry if that wasn't clear from my post.
synchronise 12y ago
Bitmessage is abhorrent for sending offline messages with, the rebroadcast system does not scale well. You need a good DHT solution like I2P Bote to get a decent, decentralised offline messaging system.
jimbobimbo 12y ago
Back in the day, there was Gilmour who would publish an article about Twitter every week on TC. "Twitter this", "twitter that", "twitter is the answer to any possible problem out there". Now it's blockchains. That's TC's MO, nothing new.

by lawl 12y ago

hughw 12y ago

The article is only attempting to get the news out that there's an emerging movement to decentralize, and that the underlying technologies aren't baked. If you knew that already, you probably didn't get a ton out of the article.

adrusi 12y ago

> They state the example that a bitcoin like blockchain isn't the right solution for distributed email? Well no shit? A few paragraphs before that they even say "blockchain is a distributed database", well you don't want a distributed database to deliver messages to individuals. I think what they were going for was that the blockchain would act as a central point of organization for a distributed network of peers that are performing the actual task of sending messages. You're right that the article led to no conclusion though. I felt like I hadn't consumed any content. But then I kind of expected that from an article like this on Techcrunch.

forgottenpass 12y ago

Did I miss the message they were trying to convey? Nope, you had it in your first sentience, the article doesn't really say anything at all. I've recently started considering TC's coverage "tech-adjacent", a poorly-formed idea that their target audience is people who work in or with tech-heavy fields, but would never be called on to design or implement systems themselves. TC can talk tech-adjacent stuff to techies, or tech to tech-adjacent, but talking tech to techies elicits a uncanny vally-ish reaction. FWIW, I think what the article inadvertently speaks to is that the apprehensiveness to strongly centralized systems I've watched grow for at least a decade is starting to resonate with even more people.

dmourati 12y ago
Agree. I liked the concept of the article if not the title. From there, I was quickly disappointed. Mainly what happens to me is I look for evidence to support (or refute) an idea I'm mulling. This piece fell short in that I couldn't easily refer others to the article and expect them to come away with any increased understanding. If anyone knows of a good treatment of centralized/distributed at the service or team levels, please do share.
existencebox 12y ago
You'll have to forgive me for tangenting this a bit, but yours and my sister posters mulling prompted some mulling of my own. While I can certainly say I've gained the apprehensiveness you speak of, I realize I've gained it for systems at scale; centralized or otherwise. In fact, for badly engineered distributed systems, where you previously had one problem (getting modules to communicate) you now have N; (getting modules to communicate over potentially unreliable channels; which may themselves have additional hidden points of failure and varying failure modes/symptoms, etc etc). I'm being a bit high-level-hand-wavy with this, but it seems to get the point across (I hope.) My takeaway being, I'm curious if there have been people who have addressed this potential conundrum (and if you even see what I stated as a problem at all.). Data to show that systems are more/less reliable due to certain failure modes under different architectures would be nice, but that seems like a MASSIVE undertaking to do if you have any desire for the data to be meaningful; if only that it may be testing the competency of the team rather than the actual underlying relative difficulty. (although if done broadly enough maybe that would still provide useful guidance? I'm rambling at this point, but some thoughts.)

kordless 12y ago

> Did I miss the message they were trying to convey? No, they didn't do a good job of explaining it. 'We' basically failed at building easy-to-use decentralized 'services' and those who don't think it's a big deal to do so built a bunch of centralized services that were easy-to-use and also made their investors rich. Users don't understand all the ramifications of using a centralized service, so they ended up using what was easier, instead of what was better. Further, the reasons to move away from a centralized service are difficult for most people to comprehend, so there's not a way for clear intent to emerge, other than a bunch of us rattling the cage now and again trying to get others to pay attention.

wcummings 12y ago

I think you misunderstand how Bitmessage works. It doesn't use a blockchain. It's like alt.anonymous.messages, but with a Bitcoin-like broadcast protocol http://www.quora.com/What-is-Bitmessage-and-how-does-it-work http://www.quora.com/What-is-Bitmessage-and-how-does-it-work

lawl 12y ago
That's what I was trying to say. Different protocols for different things. You don't want a blockchain for bitmessage. I know how bitmessage works, sorry if that wasn't clear from my post.

synchronise 12y ago

Bitmessage is abhorrent for sending offline messages with, the rebroadcast system does not scale well. You need a good DHT solution like I2P Bote to get a decent, decentralised offline messaging system.

jimbobimbo 12y ago

Back in the day, there was Gilmour who would publish an article about Twitter every week on TC. "Twitter this", "twitter that", "twitter is the answer to any possible problem out there". Now it's blockchains. That's TC's MO, nothing new.