Distributed vs Federated.
Both are decentralized.
Federated systems are a lot more modular and require a lot less trust to be built into a protocol then distributed systems.
Because of this, they are inherently worse for transactions, but a lot better for things like social media and communication.
Web 3 is trying to make a distributed system do what really should be done by a federated system. The result is a clunky implementation of anything attempting to implement the protocol.
It's important to remember that I am attempting to speak on both sides of this argument.
Right now, there are multiple people mad at me because
1. "blockchain technology has other uses too."
2. "the blockchain is a fucking redundant mess that is useless even for transactions."
I tried to find a middle ground that is supported by the main REAL WORLD use cases.
Nobody likes a compromise.
We all want to make the world better, so don't make it worse with arguments about this stuff.
@Linux_in_a_Bit Good for transactions? You must be joking. Unless you think that storing millions of redundant copies of each transaction and abysmal transaction processing speeds are good.
Blockchain invented a problem that didn't need solving. All their talk about the 51% attack is due to blockchain being uniquely susceptible to that kind of attack.
And for what? To be able to say that there's no central authority? Ask yourself is destroying our planet worth that.
I mean, it works, but I agree that it is incredibly slow and redundant.
Keep in mind that I am attempting to speak to both sides here (and losing miserably I might add) trying to give both sides the credit for things that are actually working.
The Fediverse mainly does communication, the blockchain only does transactions. I probably shouldn't have said it's "good" for transactions, but whatever.
@Linux_in_a_Bit It's good for nothing, or as we in Serbia would say, It's good for sinking cabbage. 😂
There isn't a compromise in this situation. It's simply impossible. You've got people who share no common ground.
And I'm sorry, but not all of us want to make the world a better place. Some of them want nothing more than to line their pockets while they watch the world burn.
I'm sorry if I personally came off as mad at you. That was never my intention. I get very emotional about this sort of stuff.
@dusnm Let me rephrase that:
All the people on the Fediverse reading this message, some of whom also like cryptocurrencies, want to make the world a better place.
On one hand we want nothing less than complete destruction of web3. On the other they want to see it become the next big thing.
Any compromise here becomes impossible.
Web3 threatens democracy itself. It's not neutral in the culture war, it wants to end it by eliminating our bargaining tools. They want to establish a framework where code rules all, and mere humans have no say in what the code does. It's, after all, "impartial".
>They want to establish a framework where code rules all, and mere humans have no say in what the code does.
I'm sure they don't mean it quite like that.
>Web3 threatens democracy itself.
Why do you think that?
Bearing in mind that rule of the majority is not a perfect system and if someone has a better one it should be analysed and tentatively welcomed, not attacked out of hand.
>And I'm sorry, but not all of us want to make the world a better place. Some of them want nothing more than to line their pockets while they watch the world burn.
I don't think you have any evidence for that and I don't think that you even care.
@dusnm @Linux_in_a_Bit I've read it. But I'm not going to read it again because it's 5 AM and I don't want to stay up even longer in a spiral of responding to angry rants with angry rants.
be rest assured though that I am not in favour of monetising absolutely everything or instituting totalitarian control of human beings. I don't even like NFTs (used for art).
@Linux_in_a_Bit I feel ya. Nuance is hard and people either don't know to interpret a stranger's motives, or they're too convinced by what they already believe to even consider another perspective.
Too many people think that listening to the "opposition" is a failure, when listening to the opposition is actually a great way to learn why they think that way. Even if their beliefs are wrong in your opinion, it's much more effective to convince people if you know the real reason they want to believe something, instead of the reason they tell you in anger as a reaction to what they think you said...
Um, this is a ramble. Over the years, I've learnt to keep my mouth shut unless I'm willing to write an entire essay on the subject (and even then, gotta shrug off the people who will argue about the title without reading the essay). You're free to come to a different solution, of course; mine is probably antisocial. Anything else is a detriment to my mental health though. I can't deal with the constant anger
@Linux_in_a_Bit@linuxrocks.online I am a bit biased, coming from a pro-blockchain but anti-hypercapitalist/nft/bullshit viewpoint, I have seen IRL examples in the medical and even the construction fields, despite most of it being finance there are already some non-fintech uses. Also, it's really good for voting/polls with zero-knowledge.
Don't worry, everyone in this conversation is a bit biased.
I come from the stance of "old man yelling at cloud" as you can probably tell
@Linux_in_a_Bit Most bitcoiners these days will agree with you. Bitcoin is a good currency which requires an inherently inefficient design in order to make it politically independent & censorship resistant. Blockchain is mostly useless in other contexts (unless you count things like git).
Linux geeks doing what Linux geeks do...