Brought to you by the Department of Erasing History.

  • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Open (and distributed) and private are two very difficult things to intermingle. You can mitigate some issues, but at the end of the day the two ideas have to butt against each other.

      • capital@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        What aspect of the points mentioned in the thread do you feel are addressed by blockchain?

        • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Openly distributed while being private(-ish; I know blockchains aren’t truly private but it could at least obfuscate it adequately against casual or semi serious attempts to identify someone)

          I’ll admit I’m no expert or even particularly well versed in blockchain technologies, but my (limited) understanding of them suggests this might actually be the kind of thing it’s good at (as opposed to how it could seemingly do anything a few years ago and everyone was trying to shoehorn a blockchain into their products)

          And to underline part of my comment, I did say “I wonder if…” rather than asserting that it would work or even that I bet it would work

          • capital@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            Fedi technologies are already distributed. That’s literally what federation is about.

            Blockchain isn’t private by default although some have gone that direction. Bitcoin, for example, is pseudonymous - all transactions are public to the world though no tx is tied to an identity on chain.

            Any privacy features you’re imagining can be built for a blockchain solution to this problem could be built into a “normal”, web 2.0, federated solution that would be far less expensive to run, resource-wise.

            It’s almost always the case that when someone comes up with blockchain as the solution to some problem, they mean distributed or maybe self-hosted. Neither of which requires a blockchain.

            Check out videos involving crypto on the Cartoon Avatar’s youtube channel such as this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xq721IAqBo&t.

          • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Fair point. Blockchain might be the quickest to implement just because the infrastructure is already established, even if it’s not trivial. Not sure, though.