Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kim Dotcom reveals more about his blockchain-inspired alternative Internet

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 43 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom reveals more about his blockchain-inspired alternative Internet

#21

Post by gjulianm »

ernestoharti wrote: post #19
gjulianm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Non-IP Based. I think that Dotcom refers to the fact that the "webpages" or whatever they're going to serve are not hosted on a specific IP but are instead distributed in the blockchain; and he talks about IP because either a) he doesn't know what he's talking about or b) he's oversimplifying a lot. In any case, the MegaNet would run over IP because no ISP is going to let non-IP protocols go through their networks.…

Great insights and thanks for the link. Extremely interesting and hot topic. What do you think of Project Maelstrom's chances of succeeding in what they're trying to accomplish?

I think they're going to make an interesting tool (I tried it a few months ago and it worked fairly well), but it's impossible to make it widespread, same as Tor isn't going to be widespread. The restrictions imposed by their goals are going to make those networks less attractive than the current, regular internet. And, let's face it, few people really need to use Tor or Maelstrom.

Re: Kim Dotcom reveals more about his blockchain-inspired alternative Internet

#22

Post by mtgx »

ernestoharti wrote: post #19
gjulianm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Non-IP Based. I think that Dotcom refers to the fact that the "webpages" or whatever they're going to serve are not hosted on a specific IP but are instead distributed in the blockchain; and he talks about IP because either a) he doesn't know what he's talking about or b) he's oversimplifying a lot. In any case, the MegaNet would run over IP because no ISP is going to let non-IP protocols go through their networks.…

Great insights and thanks for the link. Extremely interesting and hot topic. What do you think of Project Maelstrom's chances of succeeding in what they're trying to accomplish?

Maelstrom is going to fail because it's closed source.

Re: Kim Dotcom reveals more about his blockchain-inspired alternative Internet

#23

Post by mtgx »

meric wrote: post #4
zuckerei wrote: post #2

Not sure what to think about the Kim Dotcom projects. They all seem to be short lived. What about that mega.co.nz thing he launched lately? I read that he sold it and distanced himself from the new owner already.

The company runs well and doesn't want his interference, he raised money from investors who conspired to wrest control from him. Kim accepted what happened and moved on. Mega.co.nz is alive and well, just not under his control.

Didn't he warn that Mega.co.nz can't be trusted anymore?

Re: Kim Dotcom reveals more about his blockchain-inspired alternative Internet

#24

Post by Nursie »

darawk wrote: post #13
styles wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that like anything, it's exploitable. Just see the example of bitcoin where a mining pool had over 50% of the computing power. If the internet was driven by a block chain, with enough money and time, you could "control it". http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-miners-ditch-ghash-io-pool-5...

Owning 50% of the mining infrastructure is not an exploit. The system is designed with that in mind - anyone in control of that much hash power has no incentive to use it, because the value of the currency would instantly evaporate. They in fact have strong incentives to avoid putting themselves in that position - because it devalues the currency (which they have invested so heavily in), and makes them a target for a…

I don't think you can dress up the 50% thing as a deliberate design point. It may be a self-mitigating weakness, but still...

Re: Kim Dotcom reveals more about his blockchain-inspired alternative Internet

#25

Post by maxerickson »

radarsat1 wrote: post #7

Aside from ad hominems though, what does HN think about the idea of a blockchain-driven internet? Genuinely curious.

I think it is dumb to call something that runs on top of and requires the traditional internet an alternative to it.

I guess it could be an alternative to the web and DNS and such.

Re: Kim Dotcom reveals more about his blockchain-inspired alternative Internet

#26

Post by asddubs »

diakritikal wrote: post #15
radarsat1 wrote: post #7

Aside from ad hominems though, what does HN think about the idea of a blockchain-driven internet? Genuinely curious.

Ad hominems? He's a convicted fraudster and embezzler.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly.

Re: Kim Dotcom reveals more about his blockchain-inspired alternative Internet

#27

Post by omginternets »

Nursie wrote: post #24
darawk wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Owning 50% of the mining infrastructure is not an exploit. The system is designed with that in mind - anyone in control of that much hash power has no incentive to use it, because the value of the currency would instantly evaporate. They in fact have strong incentives to avoid putting themselves in that position - because it devalues the currency (which they have invested so heavily in), and makes them a target for a…

I don't think you can dress up the 50% thing as a deliberate design point. It may be a self-mitigating weakness, but still...

>It may be a self-mitigating weakness, but still...

I think this is a strange way of looking at things. What non-trivial protocol doesn't have known design limitations?

Moreover, what could you possibly hope for in addition to a self-mitigating limitation, i.e: a theoretical limit that doesn't matter in practice?

Re: Kim Dotcom reveals more about his blockchain-inspired alternative Internet

#28

Post by aluhut »

mtgx wrote: post #23
meric wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company runs well and doesn't want his interference, he raised money from investors who conspired to wrest control from him. Kim accepted what happened and moved on. Mega.co.nz is alive and well, just not under his control.

Didn't he warn that Mega.co.nz can't be trusted anymore?

Yes, there is some discussion about it:

https://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-mega-trade-barbs-over-ho...

Re: Kim Dotcom reveals more about his blockchain-inspired alternative Internet

#29

Post by omginternets »

asddubs wrote: post #26
diakritikal wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad hominems? He's a convicted fraudster and embezzler.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly.

I think the point is that ad hominem attacks are actually relevant in this case. The idea might (or might not) be good, but the fact that Kim Dotcom is involved is fishy.

Re: Kim Dotcom reveals more about his blockchain-inspired alternative Internet

#30

Post by radarsat1 »

omginternets wrote: post #29
asddubs wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly.

I think the point is that ad hominem attacks are actually relevant in this case. The idea might (or might not) be good, but the fact that Kim Dotcom is involved is fishy.

Sure, I wasn't saying that ad hominems are irrelevant here. I said, "aside from ad hominems," because I'm actually curious what technical/social issues are interesting and/or challenging about the idea. In other words, I'm not saying anything about whether the ad hominems already in the replies were good or bad, I simply want to have a separate, parallel discussion about the actual proposal.
Post reply on HN