As an EU citizen, I’m wondering how things like the “right to be forgotten” would work on this? How can we remove personal information in web3? I’m still new to the topic so I guess there are some easy solutions already…
Web3 is expensive P2P
241–250 of 384 posts
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#242Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but you would think that P2P is mostly sufficient for a social media replacement (e.g. PeerTube, Mastodon, etc.). Consensus is only really nessisary for solving problems like payments or namespacing (e.g. namecoin)
For sure! Until we can figure out how to make global consensus ridiculously scalable, I don't see "web3 social" being successful at all. It's using a very expensive resource for a frivolous need.
Spammers are perfectly happy to pay-per-impression if that's what it takes to get ads (or botnet droppers, etc) in front of victims. They are more willing to pay than an actual user is, really.
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#244I will speak up in defense of its point of origin (as next-generation P2P), the concept of the "decentralized internet,"
which prior to and if stripped of its monetization schemes back to its original precepts,
is as current and urgent as it ever was;
even more so in light of its potential complex interactions with the concepts of free speech and the like, much in the news.
An interesting critique offered ITT his that P2P "externalizes" the cost of e.g. storage to the user...
...my counter-critique to this is that TANSTAAFL, we are all already paying for storage (most of it for surveillance analytics and its products), c.f. industry chatter about revenue per user e.g. at Twitter.
One of the interesting precepts of building a decentralized web is how it changes the premises of "teh algorithm" and the avenues for weaponized (amplified, precisely-targeted, bad faith) speech. Those with the money to game the system to pervert it to their ends (selling you things being the most benevolent end of a spectrum that goes very far into worse uses) will of course always have the most elaborate and pervasive tooling; but its efficacy and that of defenses against it in a decentralized concept are much more murky. Which is what we want; indeed it's kind of the point.
Many things benefit from the efficiencies of centralization. Democracy and its constituent discourse do not seem to be among them.
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#245Moxie Marlinspike on Web3 [1]: * "People don’t want to run their own servers, and never will" * "A protocol moves much more slowly than a platform" [1] https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html
Says the same co-creator of Signal shoving a private crypto-currency and wallet into the Signal app by not only pumping and dumping their own coins on an exchange once listed [0], but with the nature of an encrypted blockchain being a road to hell allowing the likes of terrorists, extremists, scammers and criminals to easily hide their funds used for illicit activities. At this point, Moxie's fans and minions are not…
The idea of crypto backers getting mad about "plagarizing features" is ridiculous in the extreme. Maybe what you want here is... a statist patent system that gives you a legal monopoly on particular kinds of math? Am I getting that right?
But then, this is a world where crypto people get mad about other people using the JPGs they "own" a link to... which is basically describing the need for copyright, isn't it?
If you believe in crypto I don't see how your position here should be anything other than "let crypto systems compete in the marketplace of ideas". And it is fundamentally ridiculous how crypto bros are slowly re-creating every aspect of a state except slower, more expensive, more energy intensive, less accountable, and worse for users in every way. Truly Libertarians do yearn for a feudal society, but one where they're the one on top...
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#246Nothing wrong with p2p. But often it's simply overkill. Skype started out as a p2p thing. But ultimately, video calls became a commodity where orchestrating them centrally proved to be good enough. I can make video calls with meets, facebook, whatsapp, signal, slack, etc. Not a big deal. I even still have Skype somewhere and it still works even though they ripped out the p2p bits ages ago. I'm not sure what web3 is o…
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's not like you can use assets/data from one website in another, unless it's something like a jpg... in which case it's not like you can't just upload that jpg You'd need everyone to agree to the same standard for stuff. Definitely more likely than game assets, but still incredibly unlikely
Of course you could. Just carrying your identity (even an anon one) between applications alone can be useful. How can I follow the same people on Twitter and Reddit and Discord and Playstation Network? Currently all this is difficult, awkward, etc with the current fragmentation in the market. Meanwhile, any digital content or rights can be represented by an NFT. Is it useful to own the commercial rights to use a pop…
I fee like a lot of these "cross platform NFTs" don't take the platform into consideration. A platform like Twitter or Reddit will have to opt-in to this blockchain and have to deal with reproducing whatever asset or relationship into their own systems. This will likely involve an API call to some datastore to retrieve that information.
1. For these platforms this is no different than integrating with any other 3rd party system. It's unclear how this is any different from Gravatar?
2. It's unclear why these platforms are motivated to supply such a feature. Why would I spent time integrating a blockchain for ownership rights over some in-game music, when CD Baby already exists?
A lot of these use cases are still solutions searching for a problem; they don't represent an actual material improvement for the platform (or worse, require economic investment that the platform cannot capture).
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#248Moxie Marlinspike on Web3 [1]: * "People don’t want to run their own servers, and never will" * "A protocol moves much more slowly than a platform" [1] https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#249Moxie Marlinspike on Web3 [1]: * "People don’t want to run their own servers, and never will" * "A protocol moves much more slowly than a platform" [1] https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html
Re: Web3 is expensive P2P
#250site is down for me. would have been better hosted on ipfs :)
Some aggregators include archive links automatically; maybe an aggregator should mirror/pin content on an IPFS node, and users can help host front page content?
I could do that... for money!