$1M to build decentralized social networks • Hacker News Board

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#71

Post by vasilipupkin » Fri, May 11, 2018, 4:27 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #64

Why use blockchain? Doesn't that actually give you less control? Isn't the point of a blockchain to keep a ledger of the changes? So how can you delete anything without rebuilding the entire chain? Being decentralized in this case just means that now everyone has my data. Sure, it is encrypted, but are we just going to say what is secure today will be secure tomorrow? My understanding of blockchain is that it is mean…

you don't use the blockchain in blockstack to store data, only to create an identity. data is still stored the old fashioned way. the difference is, when there is decentralized identity, it can be tied for example, to your own encrypted data storage. Not sure I am explaining this right, but that's my understanding

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#72

Post by bobwaycott » Fri, May 11, 2018, 4:28 PM UTC

qeternity wrote: post #66

cryptoz wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Somewhere between a third and a half of all the people on Earth see enough value in social networks to use one regularly. That's a logical fallacy. You cannot possibly interpret the reasons why people use the social networks. They very well may feel forced to use them in order to get a job or otherwise be socially accepted. You call that "value" perhaps - they use it to get a job, therefore providing value. But tha…

> That they use them does not mean they derive value from them. Yes it does, necessarily. This is basic biology, economics and self preservation. It may be temporal (i.e. good in short, bad in long) but nonetheless, people do not do things they do not value.

> ... people do not do things they do not value.

They most certainly do. You are confusing doing X because one values doing X with doing X because they really want Y. Be it biology, economics, or (especially) self-preservation—among many other possible rationales—it does not follow that seeking any of those Ys means one values doing the X one believes necessary to get to the Y.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#73

Post by a-dub » Fri, May 11, 2018, 4:30 PM UTC

So first I would suggest some sort of global service for translating user friendly names to internet addresses. Something that might have a bit of centralization at the top, but ultimately a decentralized network of authority of sub-namespaces and protocols for building servers that can translate these names to addresses. This system should also support attaching small bits of metadata to these names.

On top of this I propose building a protocol for store and forward messaging. Something where it is possible for anyone to develop a server that speaks this protocol. Instances of these servers can be registered in the namespace above and this is how these servers can find each other to push data around. Anyone should be able to run these servers, providing service just for themselves, small communities or even large organizations, businesses, institutions or resold commercial services.

Lastly I propose an application layer on top of this. This application layer has two components:

1) A suite of standard protocols for user agents to contact these servers and download user data 2) A suite of standard protocols for rich content, encryption or group distribution

From these pieces, it would be totally possible to build a giant decentralized social network that could present the same sort of data we see on social networks. While things could start with simple messaging, similar features to what we find on social networks could be built.

Of course there's the problem of bad actors and abuse, but it seems this could be solved by merely blocking all communication except for that from a list of known senders... We could call this the friends list.

It would be a lot of work to build and get right, it's a shame nothing like this exists today.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#74

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 11, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

orthecreedence wrote: post #70

godelski wrote: post #64

Why use blockchain? Doesn't that actually give you less control? Isn't the point of a blockchain to keep a ledger of the changes? So how can you delete anything without rebuilding the entire chain? Being decentralized in this case just means that now everyone has my data. Sure, it is encrypted, but are we just going to say what is secure today will be secure tomorrow? My understanding of blockchain is that it is mean…

I had the same thoughts. I'm really getting sick of seeing applications move to the blockchain that have absolutely no business being there. Sure, a ledger makes sense...you never want to remove or change the records. The blockchain is a really terrible medium for a social network. Maybe some kind of hybrid where the blockchain entries point/link to a centralized (or federated) location, but, then, why not just build…

[deleted]

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#75

Post by aakilfernandes » Fri, May 11, 2018, 4:34 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #64

Why use blockchain? Doesn't that actually give you less control? Isn't the point of a blockchain to keep a ledger of the changes? So how can you delete anything without rebuilding the entire chain? Being decentralized in this case just means that now everyone has my data. Sure, it is encrypted, but are we just going to say what is secure today will be secure tomorrow? My understanding of blockchain is that it is mean…

Blockchain makes perfect sense as a PKI and for URIs. You don't actually hold state there, just public keys and the location of the actual data.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#76

Post by godelski » Fri, May 11, 2018, 4:34 PM UTC

orthecreedence wrote: post #70

godelski wrote: post #64

Why use blockchain? Doesn't that actually give you less control? Isn't the point of a blockchain to keep a ledger of the changes? So how can you delete anything without rebuilding the entire chain? Being decentralized in this case just means that now everyone has my data. Sure, it is encrypted, but are we just going to say what is secure today will be secure tomorrow? My understanding of blockchain is that it is mean…

I had the same thoughts. I'm really getting sick of seeing applications move to the blockchain that have absolutely no business being there. Sure, a ledger makes sense...you never want to remove or change the records. The blockchain is a really terrible medium for a social network. Maybe some kind of hybrid where the blockchain entries point/link to a centralized (or federated) location, but, then, why not just build…

> Maybe some kind of hybrid where the blockchain entries point/link to a centralized (or federated) location...

Well what makes me uncomfortable about this type of data being decentralized is that I want to guarantee a delete or edit. To do that on a decentralized network you need to have a way to guarantee that those edits propagate to machines that you do not control. Is there a way to ensure this?

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#77

Post by woah » Fri, May 11, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

faizshah wrote: post #15

This blockstack architecture is pretty interesting, but I wish it didn't have a Token attached: https://blockstack.org/whitepaper.pdf Anyone know of a similar decentralized DNS platform and allows users to 'own' their personal data without an attached ICO?

The issue with Dat, Mastodon, SSB, Diaspora, etc. is that they do not solve the problem of who's running the servers. They give you the tools to easily sync and migrate data that can back a social network, but you still need a live machine to host the files. These systems don't specify how to find those machines and how to compensate the people running them. The result is a cobbled-together list of servers posted on project web sites as a "temporary" way for people to get started.

Cryptocurrency could potentially provide an avenue to compensate anonymous storage providers for storing encrypted data backing a social network. A well-integrated system could give users the one click to join experience you need to get wide adoption, without forcing them to think about who runs their server.

This is what Blockstack and many other projects are trying to do (I don't know about Blockstack in particular, it didn't work when I tried it a couple months ago and the founders seem to grandstand a lot).

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#78

Post by pfraze » Fri, May 11, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

isaiahg wrote: post #61

wesleytodd wrote: post #23

Just stop now and give your money to Beaker Browser https://beakerbrowser.com/

That's a really interesting project. Are there any plans to incorporate more human readable addresses? I can see how this could be misused by forking a financial institution website and imperceptibly change one letter.

The spec for using DNS is in the process of being written up. Beaker is already using the .well-known part of the spec. See https://github.com/pfrazee/DEPs/blob/e391a04d9a96ddaf3e5a6fd...

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#79

Post by krapp » Fri, May 11, 2018, 4:36 PM UTC

cryptoz wrote: post #57

onion2k wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody needs a social network anymore This sort of comment is why people in tech are very often seen as being incredibly bad at solving non-trivial social problems by people outside of our industry. Somewhere between a third and a half of all the people on Earth see enough value in social networks to use one regularly. There are plenty of problems with the way networks work, and what they do to our mental health, but…

> Somewhere between a third and a half of all the people on Earth see enough value in social networks to use one regularly. That's a logical fallacy. You cannot possibly interpret the reasons why people use the social networks. They very well may feel forced to use them in order to get a job or otherwise be socially accepted. You call that "value" perhaps - they use it to get a job, therefore providing value. But tha…

>People use social networks because they have been artificially forced into society as a near-necessity

I mean, I don't think my mother chats with her COPD support group or shares pictures of her grandchildren on Facebook with our relatives because society has artificially forced her to do so, but OK. I guess she's just a slave to the machine, then.

> That they use them does not mean they derive value from them.

It kind of does, though. Social media is just an umbrella term for platforms that allow integrated, multimedia communication between a network of accounts. All other valid and legitimate criticisms aside, people find value in social media because of the people they network with, and because social media platforms tend to be more user friendly and accessible to the mainstream than were forums, email and telephone.

Re: $1M to build decentralized social networks

#80

Post by empath75 » Fri, May 11, 2018, 4:37 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #76

orthecreedence wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same thoughts. I'm really getting sick of seeing applications move to the blockchain that have absolutely no business being there. Sure, a ledger makes sense...you never want to remove or change the records. The blockchain is a really terrible medium for a social network. Maybe some kind of hybrid where the blockchain entries point/link to a centralized (or federated) location, but, then, why not just build…

> Maybe some kind of hybrid where the blockchain entries point/link to a centralized (or federated) location... Well what makes me uncomfortable about this type of data being decentralized is that I want to guarantee a delete or edit. To do that on a decentralized network you need to have a way to guarantee that those edits propagate to machines that you do not control. Is there a way to ensure this?

You can’t guarsntee that with any service. Even if you trust the website to delete it, it can still be cached elsewhere.