I can't help but feel very suspiscious when someone brings up blockchains in a conversation about decentralization. I just don't really buy into it at all. Social applications on top of Ethereum? Yeah, love to ruin the planet with proof of work algorithms just to post a cat gif.
Just endlessly prove proof of proof of proof of proof of-
Just about sums up Chainlink.
@Gargron
It generally means that they don't actually know what a blockchain is & what it's good for / what other technologies involved in distributed consensus are. (Which is basically anybody nontechnical unfortunately.)
@enkiv2 @Gargron This. When I started out on Mastodon I was convinced we should have *users* on the blockchain (not content) but I dont think I ever fully understood the concept behind federalization.
Having said that, it would still be pretty cool to have a decentralized eco friendly authentication service of some sort.
@DatTux @enkiv2 @Gargron As far as I can tell, 'blockchain' = 'hash trees' (which are super cool and have lots of applications) plus 'proof of work' (which is super uncool and doesn't do the only thing it sets out to do)
because 'proof of work' is literally just 'proof of money' since money buys GPUs
and we already HAVE an Internet economy fully powered by Proof of Money, and it's centralising into Amazoogle faster than a black hole inside the event horizon can collapse
@natecull @DatTux @Gargron
Proof of work isn't a necessary part of a blockchain, I don't think -- it's just distributed hash trees.
Proof of work is just so you can incentivize ledger-checking (unnecessary unless you expect bad actors trying to manipulate the ledger, and useless if you aren't a private currency).
That's interesting!
"Proof of work isn't a necessary part of a blockchain" is not an idea I've seen before.
When most people talk about "blockchain technologies" they generally mean "distributed hash tree plus proof of work" and it's almost always the proof of work part that people object to.
This basic confusion over the meaning of the word "blockchain" would explain a lot of the hostility I've encountered from "blockchain" fans when I mention proof of work.
Blockchain is the MongoDB of current year.
@Gargron bitcoin clearly isn't Web Scale though
@Gargron Proof of Work is itself a big issue. Theoretically Proof of Stake or other more efficient Blockchain algorithms could support systems which enable more efficient scaled Blockchain networks. That’s my hunch for what will emerge over time. That and more renewable energy sources. (Or at least I hope).
@DAL A couple years ago MongoDB drove a successful marketing campaign and for years to come people were obsessed with NoSQL databases, attempting all sorts of applications on top of them. In the end, turns out that relational databases have a pretty good reason for being the most common database choice and NoSQL has a very limited application scope. I believe the same is true of blockchains. Git is a cool blockchain. There are better models for decentralization, though.
@DAL There are a lot of structures in the real world that are decentralized in a federated fashion. Many countries and alliances function this way, hell, banks function this way between each other. The web as we use it today is federated. So I think it's quite reasonable to believe that social networks ought to function the same way.
@Gargron (familiar with the MongoDB point and well put).
But for social networks one aspect of tokens which seems particularly interesting is it enables users to own their content and also generate value through their efforts / building the ecosystem. That seems to be unique especially to Blockchain / smart contract technology. Meaning: decentralized ownership of the community.
@DAL I know you're referring to steem. The problem with that approach is that the tokens are subject to speculation, and so at best you're relying on the underlying entity's goodwill to exchange those tokens for some particular rate. And in so far as those tokens cannot be reliably exchange for real world goods and services, the system isn't any different from reddit karma.
@Gargron oh I’m not referring to Steem. I think it is too spammy and not the best example of what I mean. Reddit has always had a horrible UX and simply shows how much people demand a better social network. I don’t think anyone has quite figured out how to do it best I just think users should own the community and crypto might enable that to happen more effectively
@Gargron it is so weird- it's like people have no idea what it is. "Maybe the block chain would help with our problem!"
"...? How would an immutable database even relate to this problem?"
"... what?"
"block chain. It's just an immutable database."
"...oh."
Granted, the distributed versions that reply on proof-of-work as a solution to the Byzantine generals problem are super cool, but we are at the state of "cool technology I don't really know how it works. APPLY TO EVERYTHING BECAUSE $$$"
@Gargron it's probably a good thing that you're questioning it. I am too. it's a mania and people will get burned.
@Gargron Mastodon on a blockchain!
(I'm joking, but I've seen someone seriously asking for it)
@Gargron i think PoS is lighter in that regard but eh. it's much easier to imagine a p2p protocol that works way better than ipfs
@Gargron The "ruin the world" part isn't a problem. There's factors destroying the world much more rapidly, like warfare. Blockchains allow us regular people to verify the actions of govt. by offering transparency into their doings. It also allows us to invest in clean energy without depending on the current providers. There's a lot to win with blockchains, not so much to lose.
@Gargron ever heard of IOTA? :)
@gargron
IBM is pitching blockchain to.store health records. So someone gets hut by a car or cancer or whatever have fun with the ever increasing access time. Also it will be really fun when you forget your password and lose all your records
@Gargron Agreed. The model is centralised, but when 1% of the network do either a. 99% of the work, or own 99% of the currency its only decentralised at a network level.
@gargron
what if
blockchains
but for blockchains??