Why use blockchain? Doesn't that actually give you less control?<p>Isn't the point of a blockchain to keep a ledger of the changes? So how can you delete anything without rebuilding the entire chain? Being decentralized in this case just means that now everyone has my data. Sure, it is encrypted, but are we just going to say what is secure today will be secure tomorrow?<p>My understanding of blockchain is that it is meant to be tamper proof. Which is nice for things like tracking votes or ensuring the integrity of things, but with my personal data I WANT to have the power to tamper with it. These two ideas seem to be at odds.<p>If I'm misunderstanding, maybe somebody can educate me.
So first I would suggest some sort of global service for translating user friendly names to internet addresses. Something that might have a bit of centralization at the top, but ultimately a decentralized network of authority of sub-namespaces and protocols for building servers that can translate these names to addresses. This system should also support attaching small bits of metadata to these names.<p>On top of this I propose building a protocol for store and forward messaging. Something where it is possible for anyone to develop a server that speaks this protocol. Instances of these servers can be registered in the namespace above and this is how these servers can find each other to push data around. Anyone should be able to run these servers, providing service just for themselves, small communities or even large organizations, businesses, institutions or resold commercial services.<p>Lastly I propose an application layer on top of this. This application layer has two components:<p>1) A suite of standard protocols for user agents to contact these servers and download user data
2) A suite of standard protocols for rich content, encryption or group distribution<p>From these pieces, it would be totally possible to build a giant decentralized social network that could present the same sort of data we see on social networks. While things could start with simple messaging, similar features to what we find on social networks could be built.<p>Of course there's the problem of bad actors and abuse, but it seems this could be solved by merely blocking all communication except for that from a list of known senders... We could call this the friends list.<p>It would be a lot of work to build and get right, it's a shame nothing like this exists today.
Nobody needs a social network anymore, whether it is decentralized (Mastodon, Diaspora) or centralized (Facebook, Twitter). I think the social media bubble burst a long time ago and we just didn't realize it. I also have a Mastodon account, but used it only for a short time. I speak now only for myself personally, social networks bore me quite and I have no more interest to sign up somewhere.
Just stop now and give your money to Beaker Browser<p><a href="https://beakerbrowser.com/" rel="nofollow">https://beakerbrowser.com/</a>
One of the questions is: "describe your social network in 50 <i>characters</i> or less."<p>"Facebook but decentralised" is already 26 characters so that seems like a bit of a tight limit. I suppose it'll help find people who have any marketing nouse, which is the actual challenge for a project like this, not technology.
Blockchains are good for one thing and one thing only. Censorship resistant money exchanges. That's it.<p>These guys launched the same concept last year. For $25m and they literly have nobody using the platform.<p><a href="https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/blockstack-partners-vcs-launch-25-million-blockstack-signature-fund/" rel="nofollow">https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/blockstack-partners-vcs...</a>
How does blockstack compare to alternatives like Dat (<a href="https://datproject.org/" rel="nofollow">https://datproject.org/</a>) and IPFS (<a href="https://ipfs.io/" rel="nofollow">https://ipfs.io/</a>)?
They want it built on their tech here: <a href="https://blockstack.org/" rel="nofollow">https://blockstack.org/</a>. "New Internet" aye? Is this an based on an episode of <i>Silicon Valley</i>?
I still believe this approach is not optimal in the practical sense. I believe the issue is having a common and standard source of truth for user metadata. Social platforms are secondary to this problem.<p>I would suggest we come up with an authentication system that can scale across several small technical groups of people, perhaps something like OpenLDAP. Then lets put a few gateways in front of it like SAML2/OAuth/whatever. Set up replication between a few technical folks in a small circle of trust. If a friend leaves the circle, exclude their node from replication.<p>Now put whatever trendy web app, chat app, misc app in front of that authentication. The apps can come and go, but the authentication data, email contacts, phone numbers, all maintained in one authentication system and highly replicated.<p>Each application should be coded in such a way that users own their data and are prompted to download backups. Data retention policies should be very obvious to the end user and they should know this is not a long term archive for their binary data.<p>Each small group of technical folks share their platform with their circle of technical and non technical friends. Each geek pulls a copy of the backups in the even a friend wants to leave the circle. Different geeks in the circle can manage different pieces of the platform or different applications.<p>At least, that is how I would approach this problem. YMMV.
Like everyone else, I'm building one. But I'm not hung up on distributed storage or any of that. It's just a simple way for people to host social network rooms from their always-on home computers if they want. The gist: app w/ statically compiled Tor (separate lib started at [0]), room config flexible enough to build different social network types, communicate via gRPC over Tor onion services (protos at [1]), and make it so dead simple that it just works (mobile remotes to home onion service).<p>I think people are worrying so much about network and storage and uptime for ephemeral machines that they are missing the forest for the trees here. Just get a decent platform and iterate from there. At first, you don't have to federate, conform to a protocol, distribute data, etc. But if you are building these things, why not at least offer anonymity?<p>0 - <a href="https://github.com/cretz/bine" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/cretz/bine</a>
1 - <a href="https://github.com/cretz/yukup/tree/master/yukup/pb/proto" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/cretz/yukup/tree/master/yukup/pb/proto</a>
The big problems in social media are already decentralized. Tribalism (also termed as filter bubbles), the spread of false information, and outrage as a mechanism of virality all originate with people in a distributed fashion.<p>Facebook selling ads based on demographics is centralized but it seems to me like a small part of what's messed up about social networks.
There is an interesting experiment in the Bitcoin (Cash) camp called Memo.cash, which mimics early Twitter using Bitcoin's blockchain. Posts need to spend a few satoshis to be posted and you cal also tip others. Pretty neat!
It exists now, today. Use it.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ1O_gmPneI" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ1O_gmPneI</a><p>It is simply a platform on top of the Web same as Wordpress, that anyone can install. It can even run on local wireless mesh networks.<p>Oh and it’s totally Free and Open Source and any community or startup can use it to build apps to put in the store.<p><a href="https://github.com/Qbix/Platform" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/Qbix/Platform</a><p>Contact me if you’re interested to be involved, or just have a question about how to get started. (Greg+hn, the at sign, then qbix.com)
Is it public discourse or private discourse?. If public, then you have no right to anonymity or to be forgotten. Anyone can record what you say in public, and that is reasonable and expected. Myself, I would like to have both - just as I do in the non-digital world. I don't expect that one platform can serve both purposes.<p>Private communication is not possible. Humans have been striving to achieve it for all of history. I guess that the rich and powerful can achieve it to a certain degree. The analog hole is the problem. Why is there not more technical discussion about plugging the analog hole?
I sound like a broken record, but in my humble view decentralized social network is even worse than centralized one.<p>Key feature of any social network should be 'right to be forgotten' (e.g. delete content), and ability of network to moderate and update content (due to legal requirements, or due to users requests for their own content or for other reasons).<p>How do you manage that in a system such as proposed here? How do you enforce content to be removed due to court order? How do you take down a revenge this or that after your account gets hijacked and your password/keys are gone?
Users must own and control their data, using open standards, so that apps can come and go and people aren’t locked into them.<p>The biggest obstacle to this is browsers. Browsers must implement decent identity and authentication with pluggable encrypted data storage. Without that there simply can’t be a decentralized social network on the web.<p>Beaker browser is the only active project attempting to move in that direction, even though it might not be the right solution. They deserve the $1 million, not some idiot blockchain bikeshedders.
This blockstack architecture is pretty interesting, but I wish it didn't have a Token attached: <a href="https://blockstack.org/whitepaper.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://blockstack.org/whitepaper.pdf</a><p>Anyone know of a similar decentralized DNS platform and allows users to 'own' their personal data without an attached ICO?
Lots of anti in this thread, so I don't mean to pile it on. But... a new browser is the wrong UX to develop an ecosystem of apps.<p>It needs to be an API, that developers can use existing platforms (current browsers, mobile and native apps) to build their apps. Users aren't going to care enough about decentralized data to change their behavior.
Decentralised social networks are a bad idea. Communication tools need to be inclusive and open to everyone, especially laypeople. Decentralised tools and blockchain turn off non-techies, and are overkill for the social networking problem.
how would this work? if users own their own data, do you have to query them for data every time? would this be horribly inefficient ? I mean this as a technical question about how blockstack works. if you start caching or storing users data, then there is nothing stopping you from mischief with it, right?
There is a documentary on HBO about this effort called "Silicon Valley". It is in the 5th season.<p>The basic challenge is that smart people keep making really poor choices which are very funny but also counter productive.
Holy shit, why? This "decentralized social network" concept has been around literally since the beginning of Facebook. Apparently, people are failing to grasp that centralization isn't the problem and will never be a selling point to 2 billion people.<p>The problem is making something as engaging and entertaining and interesting as Facebook. Good luck.
If anyone is looking to learn how to build a DApp on a smart contract platform, check out Nebulas.<p>It uses Javascript or Typescript as its language.<p>You can learn to how to build a simple DApp in a day and get paid to do so (100 NAS for just submitting one or win up to 20,000 NAS for winning DApp of the month).<p>Check it out here:
<a href="https://incentive.nebulas.io/signup.html?invite=xDhnG" rel="nofollow">https://incentive.nebulas.io/signup.html?invite=xDhnG</a>