941–950 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if I own an NFT and make sure to store the hash, does that mean I also own all collisions?
You don't even own the hash. You just own a database entry pointing at the hash. There is no mechanism on the Blockchain preventing someone else creating a new NFT with the exact same hash.
What's to prevent another NFT from pointing to the same data and copying the hash?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Feels like the "distributed web" portion of it has just been an over-exaggeration all along. It has, but only a small portion of people with the engineering skills to recognize knew it. Those profiting off it hyped it, and those not either called it a scam or stayed out of the fray.
I keep saying that there are exactly two kinds of people in the crypto space: scammers who know exactly what they are doing, and gullible fools
The views on centralized services such as Infura really resonate with me. A few months ago I looked into how Ethereum and smart contracts work and got excited that there is basically this shared "virtual machine" with persistent, public state that can only be altered by interacting with those smart contracts. But soon after it became clear that it is not really possible for me (or any regular "client" as the article…
Running nodes is pretty easy with setups like DappNode. Full eth nodes arent that big, i synced a new one in a couple of days last week onto an old ssd. Most heavy contract data is stored offchain on ipfs, so you can just pin the stuff you are interested in. Where i would agree is indexing/searching lots of data is a pain. You cant just give an address and get a list of tokens associated with it, you have to call eve…
I hate running servers even for my business. I want someone else to do that as the article pointed out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The personal server space is littered with failed startups. Not because it's difficult to make turnkey personal servers. Embedded Linux hardware is unbelievably cheap. They fail because they don't bring any benefit against real-world threats, but they come with significant downside risks. If your house floods or your home server is burgled, your data is just gone. So your home server ends up backed up to the cloud an…
> Not because it's difficult to make turnkey personal servers. It's crazy hard to make turnkey personal servers that will be usable by ordinary people. > They fail because they don't bring any benefit against real-world threats, For a vocal contingent online, real-world threats involve lack of control over hosting, over their data, over encryption. Your own servers would address (at least partially) all these problem…
Vocal? Yes, but my no means the majority.
I'm in tech running my own software company and I don't even want to upkeep centrally maintained hardware like my PlayStation. It's just a pain (often enough) and for the non-tech people in my life it's just barely tolerable.
Apple TV is the best, but it still has really problems that pop up now and then.
His conclusion about distributed web3 is also true for microservices.
1. When people are financially incentivized to run servers, they always will. 2. If a crypto protocol doesn't evolve at the pace of available innovation, that particular blockchain will be superseded by a new one. That said, a (truly democratic) evolutionary process is a core part of every blockchain specification. 3. You can get blockchain data via public (and federated/proxied) API, but you can always cryptographic…
And this is predicated on it being zero-maintenance/upkeep for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was a webmaster back in the days when one could debate cern vs ncsa and which provided a better server and for a while, I ran my own web servers at home on some static IPs from Speakeasy... The issue is that the complexity of the modern systems have gone beyond what one person can keep in their head and maintain. This is doubly true when one considers the amount of time investment to keep on top of patches and CVEs…
Responding to this in particular: > The issue is that the complexity of the modern systems have gone beyond what one person can keep in their head and maintain. This is doubly true when one considers the amount of time investment to keep on top of patches and CVEs. I dislike that this myth keeps getting thrown around. I’m not the brighest person around but the state of my self hosted applications, be it config, patch…
Hosting and running a 3rd party instagram clone on my home intranet that is available to the outside world isn't something that I'd be comfortable doing.
On the other hand, the bluehost Wordpress instance keeps itself nicely updated. I'm ok with that. Likewise, the GitHub pages site is out there and I don't even have to slightly think about that one.
The difference between the home intranet and home hosted intranet available services is a significant distinction for me.
I wouldn't be comfortable running home hosted intranet available solutions for anything. Nor would I want my parents or siblings to be running such.
I shudder to consider how many home networks were compromised with Minecraft systems last month... and how many are still vulnerable.
While you and I may be practicing safe and reasonable network policies and staying up to date with vulnerabilities for services running on our systems - that level of technical understanding and responsibility isn't something that is commonly found in the general populace.
I would be hesitant to suggest that people should be hosting their own services on their own networks and without a managed solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
decentralization in the blockchain world is really to provide security and interoperability by emulating centralized services. So essentially it looks like a centralized service, but it's more secure than a centralized service.
From a cryptographic perspective, centralized and decentralised services are equally secure. From a user perspective, blockchains are less secure as there is no authority you can approach for chargebacks The point of blockchain was removing trust from a single person and spreading it around over a network
That’s just not true
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is the benefit to the average user of running their own server? All the server-side use cases you can't do with a client alone. I think you misunderstood my comment; I'm not saying that running your own email server is easy, nor that it's hard but still worth it; I'm saying that the fact that it's too hard to be worth doing is a statement about the software that exists today, not some sort of immutable feature…
> not some sort of immutable feature of the universe Except it is. Running your own server will always be more work than letting someone else do it, so unless there is a strong incentive people will let someone else run their server. This is basically the Law of Leaky Abstractions. At some point you will have to deal with a problem yourself because no abstraction is perfect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is trivially solved by including a hash of the object in the ownership certificate.
Would that be effective for low-res images like cryptopunks? Or can I create other 24 x 24 px images that have the same hash?