41–50 of 239 posts
The website is a window to the platform, but anyone can host a mirror or a personal version, all it requires is a Bitcoin Cash node.
Its fully decentralised, with self-sovereign identity and is uncensorable.
The Blockchain
There's Urbit and Twetch. First uses some of ethereum, and calling a twitter replacement is 1% of it's story. Twetch uses a bitcoin fork as a db and users have to pay to post, but get impression revenue directly
Urbit is interesting but $120 for a planet is egregious
I always wondered if one could start "tweeting" by dropping messages directly into the Bitcoin blockchain. Lots of people are very invested in it, and forking the blockchain is a lot of work and is unlikely to happen causally for the purpose of censorship.
Sure, it would cost something like 50$ a tweet and nobody would read em, but the protocol allows it.
I always wondered if one could start "tweeting" by dropping messages directly into the Bitcoin blockchain. Lots of people are very invested in it, and forking the blockchain is a lot of work and is unlikely to happen causally for the purpose of censorship.
Isn’t everything effectively centralized in so far as a server host can cut your service? Or an ISP? Or even a payment processor? It seems the systems we built are too complex and rely on the judgment of too many humans. Humans that are easily influenced. Even something like IPFS relies on unrestricted access to the internet. I’m against most government intervention, but requiring certain services to refrain from cen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're mixing decentralised and unmoderated here. You're free to run those accounts from another instance or provision your own. But you can't force someone else to carry that account, just as I can't force your Mastodon instance to carry mine.
Which means that in practice, it's very debatable how much more free these decentralized platforms are than centralized ones, and whether they're worth the extra effort required to make decentralization work. Especially since Mastodon seems to have (from my limited understanding) a "if you dare to talk to the Bad People you're also a Bad Person and getting dropped" mentality, effectively meaning that you cannot run a…
Part of the genius of Twitter is the name and its brand. Twitter, tweet, tweeting, tweeted, etc. Even if Twitter had no goodwill, it's an excellent name for such a service. None of the options presented here have that. "Hey dude, did you see that mastodon post?" "I'll add you on GNU Social" "Fediverse is getting popular, wanna fediverse?" "Nmd'ed you!" "Totally Aaether that!" "Breaking News: The Prime Minister of Aus…
The average person doesn't want the hassle of self-hosting their own social media server. Not when they can join Twitter and be tweeting at the world within seconds without ever worrying about the technicals.
That means the kind of people you'll be talking to on these platforms will most be techno-libertarian types. A plus for some, a strong negative for others.