4 ms·

It could but it would be an unnecessary hurdle, because there is no need for a global consensus on a single version of the encyclopedia. Think of it as a git tr

It could but it would be an unnecessary hurdle, because there is no need for a global consensus on a single version of the encyclopedia. Think of it as a git tree, and checkout the branch you like. With a currency, it's imperative that everyone refers to the same branch all the time, not so with an encyclopedia. In practice there would be a few "popular" branches, and one would likely dominate, so that it would be trivial to identify it by relying on a social consensus. Using a blockchain when what you need is a distributed database is overkill.

fragmede 12y ago
It's not imperative that everyone refer to the same branch all the time for currency either. If User A gives Bitcoin to User B, and User C gives Bitcoin to User D, there's no need for them to be on the same branch as the two transactions are unrelated. It's when you need to merge branches back together that things tend to get messy - with currency or an encyclopedia, and everyone being on the same branch all the time is better, for both cases. I can just imagine what the 'popular' branch for an encyclopedia would look like if 4chan set their sites on causing problems for it.
- murbard2 12y ago
  1) Sure, some operations are commutative and compatible, and you can import them from one branch to another, but in the general case, they aren't 2) Same thing that happens currently on Wikipedia. There's a set of rules that determine what edits are valid and which aren't, and a local client can applies those rules (or not) to determine the HEAD version. There's nothing that prevents a Sybil attack on Wikipedia, but there doesn't seem to be the need for it.
wongarsu 12y ago
If you consider malicious actors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse), some form of local consensus becomes necessary. In the real Wikipedia this is handled by admin actions right now. And that's really the only workable system I can come up with right now. You could have different branches with different admin teams, but in a sense we have that technology already: anybody can download an XML dump of the Wikipedia database and set up their own Wikipedia clone with minimal effort.
- murbard2 12y ago
  Yes, we do have that technology, yes it's Wikipedia, yes it can be distributed, no that doesn't require a blockchain nor particularly benefit from one.

fragmede 12y ago

It's not imperative that everyone refer to the same branch all the time for currency either. If User A gives Bitcoin to User B, and User C gives Bitcoin to User D, there's no need for them to be on the same branch as the two transactions are unrelated. It's when you need to merge branches back together that things tend to get messy - with currency or an encyclopedia, and everyone being on the same branch all the time is better, for both cases. I can just imagine what the 'popular' branch for an encyclopedia would look like if 4chan set their sites on causing problems for it.

murbard2 12y ago
1) Sure, some operations are commutative and compatible, and you can import them from one branch to another, but in the general case, they aren't 2) Same thing that happens currently on Wikipedia. There's a set of rules that determine what edits are valid and which aren't, and a local client can applies those rules (or not) to determine the HEAD version. There's nothing that prevents a Sybil attack on Wikipedia, but there doesn't seem to be the need for it.

wongarsu 12y ago

If you consider malicious actors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse), some form of local consensus becomes necessary. In the real Wikipedia this is handled by admin actions right now. And that's really the only workable system I can come up with right now. You could have different branches with different admin teams, but in a sense we have that technology already: anybody can download an XML dump of the Wikipedia database and set up their own Wikipedia clone with minimal effort.

murbard2 12y ago
Yes, we do have that technology, yes it's Wikipedia, yes it can be distributed, no that doesn't require a blockchain nor particularly benefit from one.