@gvs @brave @cassidyjames None of that was or is true. The problem (we discussed it on Twitter too at the time) is proving 3rd party JS does not track. Some progress to report: arxiv.org/abs/2109.10074 (Rust and WebAssembly code under MPL from Brave on github); we are working to standardize STAR in the IETF (datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ppm/ab). I hope this helps!

@janPiteJanseke Thanks -- sorry to be late returning to mastodon, so late that the link 404s now. Do you know of a new link?

"The old promise of the internet — niche communities, human connection, people exchanging ideas, maybe even paying each other for the work they’d made — never really lost its appeal, but this year it came back with a miniature vengeance."

Tiny, weird online communities made a comeback in 2017 - Tiny, weird online communities made a comeback in 2017 - theverge.com/2017/12/28/167950

@taoeffect Good, this is progress from "ordered events"! It would help to state things more carefully up front so we don't have to toot back and forth to narrow false universals or over-general claims into more useful particular ones.

Git and blockchains use specialized Merkle trees or DAGs, but git does not enforce consensus on meaning of contents -- forking/diverging is easy by design.

Ok, let's say Merkle-ization is the common better hammer. Should sync use it? Maybe, but we need specifics.

@taoeffect Blockchains are more than "secure logs" unless you make that definition an axiom instead of a proposition with a proof.

So, what's your proof? It will hinge on defining "secure" in terms of threats and assets.

@taoeffect A blockchain is not merely an ordered list of events. Right?

@taoeffect Cats are mammals but not all mammals are cats. Blockchains are logs but not all logs are blockchains. Crazy but true!

Blockchains have specific costs as well as benefits in the face of distinct requirements and threats. Scenarios that do not face those threats, or have cheaper ways of getting the needed benefits (and not the unnecessary ones) can and do avoid blockchains.

Again, I doubt much two-phase commit to centralized dbs for OLTP will be replaced by blockchain protocols, ever.

@taoeffect Again, not the case with my examples.

Again, you made a sweeping statement: "If your app shares data over the Internet, <blockchain>." No qualification about complexity or number of users.

@taoeffect Scope creep (or jump) again: my examples were not complicated database-ish ones.

If blockchain is the hammer for all nails and pays its way, we should see it take over for centralized databases in all OLTP, a Darwinian sweep of the genome if you will. I doubt that will happen. If I'm right, please don't say it is because I didn't clap my hands three times :-P.

In my experience with programming and distributed systems, there is never one hammer for all nails.

@taoeffect I have no idea why you cherry-picked that bug. Fixing it robustly does not require a blockchain. @bcrypt may have a comment.

@taoeffect 3 is absurd scope creep and you should retract it. I'm ignoring it for now.

1 and 2 have standard answers (see github.com/brave/sync/wiki/Des). If there is a conflict, something has to resolve it. In a client-encrypted system, that something is the client software, without or (if necessary) with interaction & help from the user.

Blockchains for consensus are fantastic, but any conflict among clients breaks consensus and requires client-specific resolution algorithm. More in later replies.

@taoeffect Kind of circular arguing there :-P. Why blockchain? You have 512 chars to argue for the claim you asserted.

@taoeffect I'm thinking of Brave sync (github.com/brave/sync), of course. There are and have been other such systems (original Firefox sync, retired long ago; SpiderOak, which is still going).

@taoeffect Why blockchain at all, if client-secret-key encryption for sync among paired devices?

First look at the new soul-absorption feature of the iPhone X

Whoever perpetrated 9/11 made all US citizens "political". To swallow the official story and demand allegiance while saying "no politics" engages in politics.

Read the NIST report about WTC7. NIST won't release its model or "data" behind conclusion that fire took down steel framing at free fall. This is enough to cry foul & demand a real investigation.

The way 9/11 and then Amerithrax (US-based whether Ivins or someone else) were used to justify invading Iraq stinks.

Someone lied us into war.

Show older

The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit