Why is this valuable or desirable? I keep trying to figure this out.
A discussion forum in the Bitcoin blockchain
31–40 of 46 posts
Re: A discussion forum in the Bitcoin blockchain
#32Why is this valuable or desirable? I keep trying to figure this out.
Having spent a lot of time thinking and talking about this concept, this is valuable because you can attach cost-of-suffering to entities participating in an open conversation with an aggregate.
Consider the use of Twitter's platform as (currently) allowing a small subset of knowledgeable users to leverage viral behaviors to spread their belief systems into a larger aggregate, without the larger aggregate being able to defend against it.
Re: A discussion forum in the Bitcoin blockchain
#33Why is this valuable or desirable? I keep trying to figure this out.
Having spent a lot of time thinking and talking about this concept, this is valuable because you can attach cost-of-suffering to entities participating in an open conversation with an aggregate. Consider the use of Twitter's platform as (currently) allowing a small subset of knowledgeable users to leverage viral behaviors to spread their belief systems into a larger aggregate, without the larger aggregate being able…
> because you can attach cost-of-suffering to entities participating in an open conversation with an aggregate.
In a modern world, isn't this just "you must pay a fee to post here?" It actually doesn't seem to prove work was done by the author?
> Consider the use of Twitter's platform as (currently) allowing a small subset of knowledgeable users to leverage viral behaviors to spread their belief systems into a larger aggregate, without the larger aggregate being able to defend against it.
I've been considering this problem, but I think these kinds of work proofs are really just proof of minimum economic status.
Re: A discussion forum in the Bitcoin blockchain
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that today's 14 year old are most certainly creating records which will be viewed in the future is incontrovertible. The result will be, I think, that employers (and other decision makers) will learn not to judge someone for comments made when they were 14. The fact that our lives are increasingly documented means that we'll all have to be less judgmental about our shared weaknesses and growing pains, and th…
This is the most optimistic thing I've ever read. I hope you're right.
Consider the inevitable conclusion that all information shared "publicly" will eventually make its way to the public domain.
Re: A discussion forum in the Bitcoin blockchain
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that today's 14 year old are most certainly creating records which will be viewed in the future is incontrovertible. The result will be, I think, that employers (and other decision makers) will learn not to judge someone for comments made when they were 14. The fact that our lives are increasingly documented means that we'll all have to be less judgmental about our shared weaknesses and growing pains, and th…
That's an optimistic take on it. I could imagine that there will be companies who score the personality development of a person for HR departments.
Thats a pretty decent idea, though, isn't it?
Re: A discussion forum in the Bitcoin blockchain
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having spent a lot of time thinking and talking about this concept, this is valuable because you can attach cost-of-suffering to entities participating in an open conversation with an aggregate. Consider the use of Twitter's platform as (currently) allowing a small subset of knowledgeable users to leverage viral behaviors to spread their belief systems into a larger aggregate, without the larger aggregate being able…
> because you can attach cost-of-suffering to entities participating in an open conversation with an aggregate. In a modern world, isn't this just "you must pay a fee to post here?" It actually doesn't seem to prove work was done by the author? > Consider the use of Twitter's platform as (currently) allowing a small subset of knowledgeable users to leverage viral behaviors to spread their belief systems into a larger…
A blockchain, when applied properly, can provide levels of trust in a way that is not directly associated with the proof of work they run. Bitcoin uses SHA256 for POW, which is pretty well understood by now to be secure and hovers around cost efficiency.
Using the trust embodied in the blockchain allows for the mapping of comment, author, topic commented on, participants in the topic (a sub-aggregate) and a general context in which the topic is shared (web link and/or IPFS link). This can be done without making any of those things part of the POW.
Yes, anonymous comments and topic submissions can be made, but those may have a lower associated karma attached to them, similar to what we have here in HN. With a bit more code (Script), one could add voting based on value (i.e. I could vote you down with $20 if I had over $20 of karma associated with my account), transparency in voting (you could see it was someone with high karma commenting on x/y/z articles voting you down), and any other analytics anyone thought would be valuable in determining trust levels.
BTW, I am not indicating karma is a one-to-one mapping with value injected into the blockchain by market growth or trades. For example, I couldn't vote you down with $200 of fiat just because I didn't like what you said. I would have to "earn" the karma from upvotes from other users over time, which would be tied to my source address used to pay for voting on other users. When I actually went to vote, a portion of the revenue would go to the platform operator (HN equivalent), a portion to the submitter of the topic, and a portion to the person I voted up (or down).
Re: A discussion forum in the Bitcoin blockchain
#37I don't see what the appeal is on having a permanent message board. Certainly almost everyone who has spent a lot of time online has said something that they wish they could take offline. I think what we really need is more transience in online discussions. If I said something when I was 14 years old that shouldn't come up when an employer searches for me. I was a completely different person then. Heck, that's why I…
When it comes to blockchain-based message boards, I feel like it's a question of when not if. There's a small but vocal culture that has demand for censorless social media. You can see it bubble up when Reddit bans entire subs[1][2][3]. We've had other discussion about blockchain-based social media too[4]. The difficulty seems to be in creating a viable currency/social model and not technological feasibility.
[1] http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/1/14478948/reddit-alt-right-b...
[2] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-23/reddit-bans-pizzaga...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/09/...
Re: A discussion forum in the Bitcoin blockchain
#38Slightly off topic, but aren't all of these alternative uses for block chains going to explode their size and cause more storage and bandwidth to be used on many servers around the world?
Re: A discussion forum in the Bitcoin blockchain
#39[deleted]
Re: A discussion forum in the Bitcoin blockchain
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because you can attach cost-of-suffering to entities participating in an open conversation with an aggregate. In a modern world, isn't this just "you must pay a fee to post here?" It actually doesn't seem to prove work was done by the author? > Consider the use of Twitter's platform as (currently) allowing a small subset of knowledgeable users to leverage viral behaviors to spread their belief systems into a larger…
A blockchain, when applied properly, can provide levels of trust in a way that is not directly associated with the proof of work they run. Bitcoin uses SHA256 for POW, which is pretty well understood by now to be secure and hovers around cost efficiency. Using the trust embodied in the blockchain allows for the mapping of comment, author, topic commented on, participants in the topic (a sub-aggregate) and a general c…
So what you're saying is that basically you have verification that the conversation you see is one that took place and that there are a fixed set of identities (not people) who had that conversation?
Can't we just schlep a merkle tree over the top of any forum software and get similar guarantees? And isn't this sort of false due the lack of convergence of the block chain over long partitioning events?