I think this decentralization and federation is what web3 is all about, without all the corporations calling everything to do with monkey pixel art that costs a million dollars “web3”
I think this decentralization and federation is what web3 is all about, without all the corporations calling everything to do with monkey pixel art that costs a million dollars “web3”
What we’re seeing here seems more like a restoration of the architecture of pre-web Internet services, like SMTP, NNTP, or IRC.
The protocols are built on top of HTTPS and JSON as a session layer, rather than on lines of ASCII as in those classic protocols … but the architecture looks a lot more like “a bunch of servers under independent administration, that agree to share messages with each other in a network” than like anything with the stink of blockchains on it.
Pretty much yeah.
But what’s wrong with bolckchains? That technology is good too, a bunch of lowly monetization schemes based around it shouldn’t deface the core idea and its possibilities.
In theory/research papers, it’s not a terrible idea, a few years ago, 3blue1brown on YouTube did a video about how blockchains and cryptocurrencies work at their core, setting the controversy aside. It is a currency that is actually tied to something of immutable valuable, time and logarithmic growth, and would require much more computational power than any singular entity could control over 50% of. Those goals are good goals.
The the irl problems come in on multiple aspects however, there are only so many graphics cards made every year, so people purchasing for mining impacted the entire market of graphics cards spiking prices higher and higher, they run on electricity which is still generated with a lot of fossils fuels, and cards that break because they’re running all the time and are staying hot end often up in landfills, where lots of useful metals are just sitting and rusting away.
I don’t think anything is inherently wrong with blockchain technology, but what it’s been molded into (a purely speculative profit driven ecosystem ) is a waste of it’s potential.
The notion that any “Web” technology (i.e. user-facing publication, sharing, & discussion) needs to be coupled with a fraught¹ payment system seems like a fundamentally contentious issue, mostly introduced by people who stand to profit from the success of those payment systems regardless of benefit to Web users.
¹ Regulatory issues, cut-and-run scams, and so on. Some blockchain services have turned out to be securities regulation violations. Some have turned out to be outright frauds where the issuers have just run away with “invested” money. In any event, nobody should today be relying on any blockchain service when creating forums or other services intended for the general public.
See ftx
The problem with Blockchains is most of the projects associated with them are scams until proven otherwise. It’s kind of like Western Union transfers, money orders, or iTunes gift cards, nothing wrong with the technology behind them, but when the topic comes up, I immediately think of scams.
@kiriakos @fubo Blockchain is also a cool technology I think but I don’t think it’s so well suited for social networks because any node needs to store all the data so it becomes quite heavy with time. Blockchain is better suited for financial transactions which it does really well in my opinion.
Blockchain is well suited for storing authentication and provenance information. The Fediverse could benefit from blockchain stored instance, user, and community metadata.
@kiriakos @fubo One thing I think a platform like #Peertube needs to solve, which #LBRY does (because it uses a blockchain) is the financial incentive for content creators without ads because right now you can’t really make money on Peertube. On LBRY you can because it features its own currency and on #Youtube of course but this is using ads. This is one of the advantages to using a blockchain. However LBRY’s torrent like protocol for sharing video data is very slow and buggy which incentives the centralisation around odysee. The idea behind the project is great but not that well in practice if they don’t make the protocol faster.
It’s not clear to me that media distribution and payment need to follow the same channels.
For instance, classic TV uses completely separate pathways for distributing media to users (via broadcast radio signals) and collecting revenues. Commercial TV stations run advertisements; US-style public TV stations attract contributors and sponsors; UK BBC-style public TV stations have government funding.
(And the BBC produces good material — not only BBC World Service, but also Doctor Who.)
Platforms such as YouTube collapse all of this into a single service for convenience. And then “YouTubers” get the mistaken impression that they’re entitled to it, and fuss when they are “demonetized”.
(“Demonetization” just means “the platform doesn’t think its advertisers want to be associated with you; and the advertisers are paying to have the platform make that decision.”)
@fubo yeah that’s true but why not improve things. making it more convenient is better IMO and we have the technologies to do it.
If someone is providing convenience as a service, they get to collect a share of revenue from it, and they get to decide whether you get to use their service at all — an opportunity for censorship.
If I were in the video business (which I’m not; so I am ignorant!) I would look to distribute video via a service similar to a streaming/dynamic version of BitTorrent; and find a way to automate placement of video ads into the stream. Major tech companies shouldn’t need to be involved at all; nothing about this should need large server or network capacity — for the same reason that torrent servers don’t.
@fubo thats where i think crypto is great such as how LBRY does it. you can earn money and no one has the power to demonetize you.
Plenty of creators have solved that already through platforms like patreon. It turns out that ad-supported content only works if advertisers want to advertise on your content, and large segments of media aren’t “advertiser friendly”.
No crypto required.
“Crypto” has meant “encryption” since the early days of PGP.
If you mean “cryptocurrency” or “blockchain”, please consider using those specific words.
Kinda being pedantic. It’s a comment on a post about web3, responding to someone talking about a blockchain currency. Frankly, unless it’s unclear enough that someone might come along and ask “what does cryptography have to do with blockchain?”, I’m not sure why you feel the need to correct my usage of the word.