Post AOPqdjZ2kLQ1JsfeIC by rysiek@mastodon.technology
(DIR) More posts by rysiek@mastodon.technology
(DIR) Post #AOKcjTw8XbqUaxeF1M by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-07T17:52:40Z
5 likes, 3 repeats
Curious how all these #web3 "decentralization" projects tend to only use fully centralized services. :stallman_thaenkin:
(DIR) Post #AOKlRNqBMmkQ40J960 by lunch@cybre.space
2022-10-07T18:33:18Z
3 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek hint: it's all a scam to collect vc money and cash out
(DIR) Post #AOKlSP9VyUe4QCpyTY by arek@mastodon.internet-czas-dzialac.pl
2022-10-07T18:00:34Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek it's a shame! Decentralization with Github, Discord and Telegram...
(DIR) Post #AOKlSPkNlQ8UGY5PwO by dexternemrod@troet.cafe
2022-10-07T18:04:40Z
4 likes, 1 repeats
@arekWell, at least their nodes/validators (or how they call it) don't all run on AWS-instances or such ... Oh wait!@rysiek
(DIR) Post #AOKoC8pBDJYX0iGKsS by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-07T18:38:18Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@lunch I am shocked! Shocked!
(DIR) Post #AOKoFic4boyqsLq0Gm by jeffcliff@shitposter.club
2022-10-07T20:10:30.906665Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek where will you go when mastodon.technology is shut down?
(DIR) Post #AOLdbqkS8eoe8i4FXc by jonjon@social.linux.pizza
2022-10-08T05:44:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff @rysiek to literally any other mastodon instance?
(DIR) Post #AOLdbrEaKcv1eAAJVY by jeffcliff@shitposter.club
2022-10-08T05:45:56.645436Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jonjon yeah but like@rysiek is going to choose one, specifically
(DIR) Post #AOLeAD8tNryRRJsqLw by jonjon@social.linux.pizza
2022-10-08T05:49:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff @rysiek what's your point here?
(DIR) Post #AOLeAIypgBUZXrDtVQ by jeffcliff@shitposter.club
2022-10-08T05:52:08.285590Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jonjon my point is i want to know where @rysiek is going
(DIR) Post #AOO9KjO9plPREyRLDU by tree@social.gwei.cz
2022-10-09T10:41:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek Unfortunately, we have no such decentralised services.Federated platforms are great, but they lack the network effect.
(DIR) Post #AOO9Kk8F4QGxXu0932 by spla@mk.catala.digital
2022-10-09T10:43:38.782Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@tree@social.gwei.cz right, this is the big problem around here, very low MAU values all over the place @rysiek@mastodon.technology
(DIR) Post #AOOCyAZmz6bOiYNULA by mkljczk@pl.fediverse.pl
2022-10-09T11:31:31.472785Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
So basically like Mastodon with source code hosted on GitHub, patrons-only Discord *server* and Crowdin for translations, right?
(DIR) Post #AOODWJnpBgiJB8E5dA by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T11:34:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mkljczk what is it with people in this thread who simply refuse to notice the word "only"? đ€Šââïž Mastodon is obviously not perfect here, but at least it has a fedi presence. Obviously.
(DIR) Post #AOODWKHxNeoggaK9b6 by mkljczk@pl.fediverse.pl
2022-10-09T11:37:41.369355Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Itâs sa far from perfect as it could be in this matter, unlike, for example Pleroma or projects by Framasoft.
(DIR) Post #AOODZjHCvsad3Mb2Dw by graf@poa.st
2022-10-09T11:38:22.313633Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mkljczk @rysiek im with you on this
(DIR) Post #AOOLCO0SeCiE3f8xAu by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T10:48:03Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@spla @tree e-mail is pretty damn popular federated service.And also, I wonder how much more popular decentralized services would have been if they were promoted as much by such "decentralization" projects as the one I screenshotted? đ€ You will not get the network effect on decentralized services if you refuse to promote them.And anyone who truly believes in decentralization (instead of just paying lip service to it in order to extract VC money) knows this.
(DIR) Post #AOOLCOWiiGW5fiEiSO by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T10:53:22Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@spla @tree not to mention that perhaps there are fewer users on, say, fedi, but you can bet the percentage of users *interested in decentralization* is way higher compared to centralized platforms.So if it was really about decentralization, these projects would make sure to have a presence here. Why don't they?Because the point is not decentralization. The point is getting VC funding and convincing as many people to buy your token â @pluralistic bites into this here: https://doctorow.medium.com/moneylike-78ebe88e44d
(DIR) Post #AOOLCP0UvYKtA4AUs4 by tree@social.gwei.cz
2022-10-09T11:32:26Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek Yes, you're absolutely right. Many projects that call themselves "web3" are just a way for VCs to get money out of people. The incentivisation game attracts a lot of dishonest people trying to fool people who don't know how to work with these new freedoms.
(DIR) Post #AOOLCPQNNL2ISKHACu by tree@social.gwei.cz
2022-10-09T11:33:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek But that doesn't change what I said - we don't have decentralized platforms like Telegram, GitHub, or Discord. Email is a nice example of how federalization doesn't work very well in the long run - most people today have an account at someone in GAFA anyway.
(DIR) Post #AOOLCPsjftilsHXoPY by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T11:35:16Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@tree dunno man, Matrix seems pretty close to Discord, functionality-wise, as far as I understand. đ€·ââïž
(DIR) Post #AOOLCQNZpEOJPvyRU0 by tree@social.gwei.cz
2022-10-09T11:56:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek Yes, the Matrix is almost there, but not yet. And unfortunately, it's only federalized. We need a true decentralized identity and data - not one that is tied to a single homeserver, instance, server etc.
(DIR) Post #AOOLCQmOKyEyetaGA4 by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T11:59:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree we will have to agree to disagree here. Looking at some major negative effects of unmoderated badly moderated spaces, I firmly believe we need community-run spaces, with their moderation rules, and with ability to move between instances if need be. But that's a broader philosophical debate that I am not into having right now.
(DIR) Post #AOOLCRAUtLWTrerVjc by tree@social.gwei.cz
2022-10-09T12:12:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek Of course we need community spaces where everyone can make whatever rules they want. But we equally need a non-technical individual to be able to own their data and identity in a decentralized way.If a fedi identity was written on a blockchain, it would be easily transferable elsewhere and we could really *own it*. Right now, the administrator of our fedi instance owns it.
(DIR) Post #AOOLCRbRHB4dDDT1jE by tree@social.gwei.cz
2022-10-09T12:18:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek Web3 addresses exactly this problems - if you're a fan of decentralization and don't care, then it can be a bit hypocritical đ€ȘOr do you not mind that your fedi identity (and data) is effectively owned by someone who manages mastodon.technology?
(DIR) Post #AOOLCS8lHHjEsZ3dfU by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T12:21:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree no, honestly, I don't mind that since I can have multiple identities, I can easily move my identity, and I can self-host (and thus fully control my data and identity) if I choose to.Web3 people make all these promises about decentralization and control, that simply do not stand up to slightest scrutiny. For example, Gini coefficient in Bitcoin is way worse than in any country, including banana republics.I care about decentralization. Not about scams exploiting that term for profit.
(DIR) Post #AOOLCSdxPIgMRJeYIC by tree@social.gwei.cz
2022-10-09T12:42:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek Yes, you can have fiat money in multiple banks, you can move it around easily (if they let you), you can stash state money under your bed and self-host it if you want. But the point of bitcoin, or web3 is a bit different.
(DIR) Post #AOOLCT5xjB5FqAkuwa by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T12:55:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree yes, the point is for some people to extract rents via gas fees from every human social interaction on-line.I personally find that pretty obnoxious.
(DIR) Post #AOOLCTDlGBK2EMP96G by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T12:29:51Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@tree also, I find it very telling that you insist on using the term "own" to refer to identity. That's such a weird, mercantile way of talking about something so personal, so intimate, as one's identity.That's another level of problems with the whole "web3" racket: suddenly everything is a financial transaction. On a very basic human level that's just obnoxious, don't you think?Human social interactions should not be contingent on whether or not one can pay the gas fees.
(DIR) Post #AOOLCTansVknNpBY12 by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T12:57:10Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@tree also, the analogy you made is completely bogus. No central bank "printed" my "identity". So why are you making an analogy that relies on "state money" here?Why is everything have to be money in web3 world? How is this reasonable and sane?
(DIR) Post #AOOLCVasRD07adEdPM by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T12:32:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree and since we're talking about gas fees, that's the real scam right there.You know the saying "the house always wins"? After observing the web3 space for quite a while, it's difficult not to conclude that the real point there is to become "the house" and "always win" by collecting the gas fees.If you get in early enough you can build the mining pool (for PoW), or the stake of enough size (for PoS), to live off of gas fees.This is called "rent seeking", go look it up.
(DIR) Post #AOOLCWszdL5Pb6icHg by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T12:35:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree of course that's not the *only* scam going on in the web3 space. You say "own your identity on a blockchain", great, which one?How many of those blockchains went bust over the last few years? How many got rugpulled?How many got drained because turns out humans are bad at coding and assuming that some piece of code is without errors and betting the whole value of a smart contract or whatever on that ends *badly*?
(DIR) Post #AOOLCYDEhYsBiBCITY by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T12:40:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree and so from a user's perspective, what is the difference between "I owned my identity on blockchain X and it rugpulled/went bust/whatever" vs. "I had my account on instance.example and it shut down"?I'll tell you what the difference is: instance.example users get to seamlessly move their identity to a different instance, or self-host, without losing their whole social network.So I'll take the federated approach fedi takes over mercantile, rent-seeking approach of web3 any day, thanks.
(DIR) Post #AOOLCZNuLN0HLZCKkS by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T12:54:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree oh, one more thing about "owning" stuff like "identities" or "profiles" or whatever.The instance does not "own" it, it merely hosts it. Even if the instance hosts your stuff, you are still the *owner* of it in the legal sense. So it's a question of control, not ownership.This distinction is important. The fact that web3 pushers insist on confusing (often on purpose, I believe) the two is also very telling.
(DIR) Post #AOOLCaRUPXSkcxshyC by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T13:03:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree and it gets worse: controlling a thing on a particular blockchain *still* does not mean that you "own" a thing.For example, owning an NFT does not mean you "own" an artwork it refers to:https://tecc.media/claim-nfts-make-it-possible-to-own-digital-artwork/
(DIR) Post #AOOW1me5nXr2mlpN5M by lxo@gnusocial.net
2022-10-09T14:51:01Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
you seem to be conflating instances with communities here. there's no reason for it to be so. think xmpp group chats, entirely orthogonal to servers providing the identity. there's no reason for an identity to be tied to a specific server for community rules to be set and applied
(DIR) Post #AOOWQdMfRSYFEyWiMy by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T12:19:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree I have been one of the first early adopters of Twister. Have you heard of Twister? It was doing blockchain-based identity in social media before it was cool and before "web3" buzzword was invented.The "identity on a blockchain" idea sounds great but inevitably breaks down as soon as anyone looks at it a bit closer. And web3 is just exploiting this for profit. Thanks, but no thanks.
(DIR) Post #AOOWQdk42TGaPXTOq0 by lxo@gnusocial.net
2022-10-09T15:00:21Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
*nod*, there's no reason to record the identity in a blockchain or anywhere. just generate a key pair and you got a throw-away identity you can keep and use for however long you wish (and manage to keep the secret key private :-) that's how truly decent(ralized) and distributed systems ought to work IMHO
(DIR) Post #AOOXOLmBxodG4AwN7Y by spla@mk.catala.digital
2022-10-09T10:58:52.126Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek@mastodon.technology the point is... I don't know but for me, the fediverse's descentralization does not atract new users. The fediverse has over five 5M of registered ones but only 0,5M are active according with the APIs of all projects that provide sich information. Big problem is network effect that does not work here in fedi.@tree@social.gwei.cz @pluralistic@mamot.fr
(DIR) Post #AOOXOMCmMxtpOdNbYu by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T11:29:30Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@spla @tree @pluralistic the point I was making was not about decentralization attracting new users to fedi, the point was about ostensibly "decentralization" projects *only* using centralized services.Please do note the "only" there.A "decentralization" project that doesn't use *any* decentralized service as a communication channel is simply hypocritical. And the network effect on fedi would be stronger if more "decentralization" projects actually included it *among* their channels.
(DIR) Post #AOOXOMWdB9mMOCfSVM by tree@social.gwei.cz
2022-10-09T11:45:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek Web3 projects communicate mainly through money and value, for example through smart-contracts.Similarly, you can start accusing projects around fedi of not using any cryptocurrency. That it's hypocritical that they brag about decentralization and don't use decentralized money.
(DIR) Post #AOOXOMw9eGCBfMbqHw by lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me
2022-10-09T15:20:00.641345Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree @rysiek > That it's hypocritical that they brag about decentralization and don't use decentralized money.Decentralized money? Either that's most usual currencies, or it's none. Cryptocurrencies still have banks and payment processors.
(DIR) Post #AOOZRmCwLg4OoqDHbk by Yujiri@collapsitarian.io
2022-10-09T15:43:27.815954Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@tree @rysiek federation in email works fine, just because most people use megacorps doesnât mean it failed because the point is that you can use a non-megacorp and still talk to people who use megacorps.
(DIR) Post #AOOZWSF60S6iLVS6EK by Yujiri@collapsitarian.io
2022-10-09T15:44:18.583189Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek @spla @tree @pluralistic @tree @rysiek Itâs not hypocritical that they donât use they donât decentralized money becaues they donât use money.
(DIR) Post #AOOZl9e5QoOj0p9QA4 by Yujiri@collapsitarian.io
2022-10-09T15:46:57.965833Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@lanodan @rysiek @tree Gov currency is, at best, decentralized if you use IRL cash, which doesnât allow you to pay online. Cryptocurrencies let you pay online without being beholden to a custodial service provider. Also, cryptocurrencies donât have a party that can arbitrarily print as much money as they want. I think that makes a pretty big difference in terms of decentralizedness.
(DIR) Post #AOOctUTk9qQfnvynMO by lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me
2022-10-09T16:21:38.567321Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Yujiri @rysiek @tree Online payments processors are annoying but they are as diverse as crypto-exchanges, which are needed in the real world for accountability, like anything that's a currency or a valuable.Or do you just want cryptocurrencies to be seen as MonopolyÂź money?> Also, cryptocurrencies donât have a party that can arbitrarily print as much money as they want.Well, cryptocurrencies are speculation-based, so there is no need to make anything, it has offer and demand kind of behaviors directly, instead of by side-effect with revenues and valuables.
(DIR) Post #AOOd1IS2l8eaoouGuG by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T16:12:45Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@tree no, this is what the server admin actually *controls*.If as you say "the data is legally yours", then you are the "owner" (or as close to that as possible, debates about "ownership" and copyright et al notwithstanding).Words have specific meaning, and if you insist on calling instance admin's control over my profile data "ownership", I will insist on calling everyone involved in web3 in any way "a scammer". Pretty sure nobody will be happy.
(DIR) Post #AOOd1J2YZNrQe3zQoq by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T16:17:00Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@tree regarding private keys etc, you can have that without blockchain. Public key cryptography has been around for decades.Blockchain is just a stupidly slow database that allows a bunch of people to extract gas fees from operations on it. It has nothing to do with "owning" anything, unless a specific contract or law is written and enforced.And you can have contracts and laws enforcing "ownership" of data without blockchain. Like the ones that make it illegal for masto admins to sell data.
(DIR) Post #AOOd1Mvy5oy2imwE6a by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T16:22:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree and you also seem to be under the impression that:1. blockchains are immutable;2. that's a good thing.The first one is demonstrably false:https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2017/05/09/the-blockchain-immutability-myth/The second one assumes nobody would never ever want to delete any data, for whatever reason.This is not the case: from trans people who might want to erase their deadnames, through different kinds of abuse relying on posting hurtful materials on-line, systems of our social interaction need to support deletion.
(DIR) Post #AOOdmPToRefyEBCQhU by tree@social.gwei.cz
2022-10-09T16:24:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek So a Google user owns their data on Gmail? So what is the problem with Google then?In my opinion, legal laws are outdated for online stuff, and only play into the hands of corporations like this - the individual has no chance of getting justice.And it really doesn't matter whether it's Google or a big Mastodon instance.In my opinion, you don't actually own your data on either, because it all depends on fallible, corruptible, emotional people, not a neutral algorithm, and that's it.
(DIR) Post #AOOdmPwshZvbgKne0e by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T16:28:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree the problem with google is that the user *allows* Google to mine that data (that the user owns, yes) for their own profit, in any way they like. It's right there in the Terms of Service and related documents.The fact that users give this permission willingly is a problem, but blockchain is not going to solve it at all. Not even close."Neutral algorithms" are never neutral. They are written by fallible, corruptible, emotional people. Constant stream of smart contract bugs is proof.
(DIR) Post #AOOdmQOt1SKV5Bu0f2 by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T16:30:08Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@tree also, this idea of "neutral algorithm" has a name â it's called mathwashing:https://www.mathwashing.com/And even if these algorithms were in fact neutral and perfect (which they simply cannot be, but let's assume for a sec), it's still fallible, corruptible, emotional people running and controlling them.And so we get stuff like this:https://blockworks.co/juno-network-stakeholders-to-decide-fate-of-whales-millions-in-a-crypto-first/
(DIR) Post #AOOeJA5Ei2nm26Jyro by Yujiri@collapsitarian.io
2022-10-09T16:37:55.946065Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@lanodan @rysiek @tree > Online payments processors are annoying but they are as diverse as crypto-exchanges, which are needed in the real world for accountability, like anything thatâs a currency or a valuable.I do not understand this. My biggest problem with traditional currencies is that your money is all held in custody by a bank, you donât really control it, and when you pay for something youâre basically giving the merchant your password. These problems arenât present in cryptocurrency, you can have it all stored in a local wallet and still be able to transact with it.If by crypto-exchanges you mean custodial wallet platforms, no, those arenât âneeded in the real world for accountabilityâ. Iâve bought things with cryptocurrency without using them.If by crypto-exchanges you just mean brokers that hold a specific payment in excrow, yes, those are useful but theyâre not the same as banks, because they only hold the payment theyâre being used for.Well, cryptocurrencies are speculation-based, so there is no need to make anything, it has offer and demand kind of behaviors directly, instead of by side-effect with revenues and valuables.So? My point was that itâs an advantage to not have the supply of currency controlled by a single entity (and that entity is known to be malevolent and has a history of abusing this power)
(DIR) Post #AOOinyMGklSuSfEfJY by lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me
2022-10-09T17:27:53.152445Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Yujiri @rysiek @tree Why would a customer explicitly use a payment processor?Sellers are the ones that need to use direct equivalents to paypal/stripe/⊠when it comes to cryptocurrencies, either in a way that the customer sees or internally for themselves (which I would take as more risky).Meanwhile for recognised currencies there is the possibility of using wire transfer like SEPA which doesn't requires cryptocurrencies nor some kind of centralisation.As for control of the currency supply itself⊠I find that to be some massive make-believe, specially when the topic is decentralisation.Crypto-currencies are backed by very few actors, sure they typicallyÂč don't control the amount of crypto-coins available, but that doesn't prevents crypto from having exactly the same problems, inflation is still there, just purely caused by wealth distribution issues (like the average wealth changes when a millionaire enters and leaves a bar) when it comes to fixed-amount currencies.Âčit's implementation-defined, ÇŠ1 has a non-fixed amount for example. And there is ones trying to follow gov-currencies like USD.
(DIR) Post #AOOk7axRZ5lTdFXnlI by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T16:33:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree I mean, we're having this conversation mere 48h or so after BNB chain had to be stopped because a bug in a smart contract somewhere allowed someone to exfiltrate half a billion USD-equivalent:https://nitter.eu/samczsun/status/1578167198203289600I mean, one would assume that for something handling that amount of monies, it would be audited and written in a way to make such exploits impossible!And if it's not the case here, where would it be?..
(DIR) Post #AOOk7bQ9qKjX4IyjWC by tree@social.gwei.cz
2022-10-09T16:39:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek Sorry, I don't care about BNB - for me it has nothing to do with Web3. Just like you probably wouldn't be interested if someone forked Mastodon, made some proprietary fork of it, marketed it heavily to masses with help or VCs, then it became a mess, and then people would tell you - hey Mastodon, that's a piece of shit... (even though you've been discouraging proprietary forks all along)
(DIR) Post #AOOk7br6EAHgPraFVo by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T16:43:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree I don't care if you care. You pitch "neutral algorithms" of smart-contracts against "fallible, corruptible" people and I give you a clear counter-example of a smart-contract that fell on its face to the tune of 600mln USD-equivalent. If a bug was found in that proprietary Mastodon instance that also affected all the other masto instances, I would definitely care, and insist it's fixed.Problem here is that the "bug" is in the assumption one can even have "non-fallible" smart-contracts
(DIR) Post #AOOk7cLaOofdwPqb20 by tree@social.gwei.cz
2022-10-09T17:03:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek Anyone who has been around web3 for a while and cares about freedom and decentralization knows that Binance is a centralized company that creates centralized products. People around Binance take the source code of something, mess it up, and the Ethereum community is responsible for it?Sorry, we make open and free software that anyone can use as they want and if they do it badly on purpose, it's not our fault.
(DIR) Post #AOOk7coeejvHOZRoLA by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T17:07:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree what does this have to do with the argument you made?Again, you pitted "fallible, corruptible" humans against smart-contracts, suggesting they are not so fallible and corruptible.I gave a clear counter-example. Point is, smart-contracts do not improve the situation, it's still about the people who write them (and about how they're written). So, to use your own words: "it all depends on fallible, corruptible, emotional people". In other words, web3 brings no benefit.
(DIR) Post #AOOk7dDTATlwdX3d1E by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T17:09:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree the full quote:> In my opinion, you don't actually own your data on either, because it all depends on fallible, corruptible, emotional people, not a neutral algorithm, and that's it.I read this as: "if it depends on fallible, corruptible, emotional people, this means you don't own your data".And if that reading is correct, then you don't "own" data even in a smart-contract-run world of web3. Because it *still* depends on "fallible, corruptible, emotional people". Cool!
(DIR) Post #AOOk7dgBRik04aUYm8 by tree@social.gwei.cz
2022-10-09T17:17:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek Everything depends on people, it's all about how much. You can theoretically change the smart-contract on Ethereum, but to do that you need the consensus of the entire Ethereum ecosystem, which is hundreds of thousands of people. How many people do you need to change the code or your data on a mastodon instance? Usually just one.I know you get it, but you keep talking to me like I'm an idiot.
(DIR) Post #AOOk7e8tixi3VdvUX2 by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T17:13:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree you say it even more clearly here:> People around Binance take the source code of something, mess it up, and the Ethereum community is responsible for it?So is it about people who write/maintain a given piece of code or a given smart-contract, or about "neutral algorithms" themselves? You seem to agree it's about the people.
(DIR) Post #AOOk7eJB6jvu1WjhYW by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T17:21:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree I am taking everything you say at face value. You pit "fallible, corruptible" people against "neutral algorithms", and I show you that these algorithms are written by the same fallible, corruptible people. I treat you like an adult that makes conscious statements that I can treat seriously. Am I wrong in this?
(DIR) Post #AOOk7ezMZtg28MTOJE by tree@social.gwei.cz
2022-10-09T17:38:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek If it were up to you, there would probably still be women sitting in banks counting bills on paper because computers have bugs. You have black and white vision, dependence on corruptible people is a scale - the moment you deploy an immutable contract on the blochchain, the human factor no longer plays *any* role.
(DIR) Post #AOOk7fPF1gNRQca3e4 by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T17:39:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree > If it were up to you, there would probably still be women sitting in banks counting bills on paper because computers have bugs. Where is this coming from? yes, code has bugs, so we need to build systems that take this into account and correct for that. Code being open is one tenet of that. Easy ways to update running code is another. Ethereum decides to do away with the latter, for no good reason.
(DIR) Post #AOOk7fSmoVDFbcEtAe by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T17:23:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree > You can theoretically change the smart-contract on Ethereum, but to do that you need the consensus of the entire Ethereum ecosystem, which is hundreds of thousands of people.This makes it even worse! If a smart-contract has a bug, which as I have shown they tend to do, now you need that level of consensus of the whole Ethereum ecosystem to fix that bug. How is this a good thing?Your whole argument hinges on humans being able to write bug-free code, and that's simply not the case.
(DIR) Post #AOOk7fmHe0oCa5MSYq by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T17:42:04Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@tree > You have black and white vision, dependence on corruptible people is a scaleOh, I agree.> the moment you deploy an immutable contract on the blochchain, the human factor no longer plays *any* role.That's where you lose me.First of all, this is demonstrably false, and you yourself mentioned a situation where Ethereum was rolled back not for technical reasons but because people decided they don't want to lose that much money: The DAO.
(DIR) Post #AOOk7hh2WTnoWOvIfI by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T17:27:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree meanwhile, on fedi, if I am running my own instance I can deploy whatever bugfixes I want whenever I want.And if I'm not running my own instance, my admin can deploy fixes without the whole Fediverse agreeing to that.I see this as a feature.Plus, people can choose their adventure: you *can* choose to have an account on a large instance, you *can* self host, you *can* use masto.host. What you describe is a situation that does not even allow that kind of choice.
(DIR) Post #AOOlGowl1X7rZvBbmq by Yujiri@collapsitarian.io
2022-10-09T17:55:56.675995Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lanodan @rysiek @tree > Why would a customer explicitly use a payment processor?Sellers are the ones that need to use direct equivalents to paypal/stripe/⊠when it comes to cryptocurrencies, either in a way that the customer sees or internally for themselves (which I would take as more risky).I just donât understand what youâre talking about and how it relates to what I said.with traditional currencies your money is all held in custody by a bank, you donât really control it, and when you pay for something youâre basically giving the merchant your password. What is the response to this?Crypto-currencies are backed by very few actors, sure they typicallyÂč donât control the amount of crypto-coins available, but that doesnât prevents crypto from having exactly the same problems, inflation is still there, just purely caused by wealth distribution issues (like the average wealth changes when a millionaire enters and leaves a bar) when it comes to fixed-amount currencies.Yes, crypto coins can change in value (and in practice much more than traditional currency), but I think thatâs mostly because few people use them, so their value is mostly driven by speculation. Iâm not disputing that this is the case, just saying that itâs because few people use them, so itâs not a problem with the design of cryptocurrencies, any project has problems like this in its early stages.Âčitâs implementation-defined, ÇŠ1 has a non-fixed amount for example. And there is ones trying to follow gov-currencies like USD.Okay, well, Iâm not talking about those ones because Iâm not knowledgeable about those ones.
(DIR) Post #AOOq6GL7Kwbr7aMhiy by lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me
2022-10-09T18:49:34.269163Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Yujiri @rysiek @tree > with traditional currencies your money is all held in custody by a bank, you donât really control it ErrmâŠa lot of banks in Europe are regional mutualists banks, some seem to even be properly cooperatives.And the whole reason you're stuck to banks are governments wanting to keep control, which you're not magically getting away from with crypto-currencies, specially if one becomes a currency that actually matters.And last time I asked, actually not depending on a third-party for cryptocurrencies transactions was either experimental or required to keep a massive copy of it's blockchain, great decentralisation there.> and when you pay for something youâre basically giving the merchant your passwordI don't know what you're referring to here, giving my bank password to any merchants doesn't makes sense.And that's more like protocol than currency, which for traditional ones aren't linked together, which is a pretty good strength.> any project has problems like this in its early stages.Early stages? Ethereum has been there since 2015, monero 2014, bitcoin 2009.10 years ought to be enough to be able to judge a project, at least it should have left the "yeah, maybe it'll get better in the future, who knows" category.A technology can take longer of course but more because of multiple projects being tried and context/environment possibly becoming more favorable.And it could be considered that early stages of it was micropayments solutions like DigiCash.
(DIR) Post #AOOr5wgcVTxo7dps92 by Yujiri@collapsitarian.io
2022-10-09T19:01:12.584485Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lanodan @rysiek @tree > ErrmâŠa lot of banks in Europe are regional mutualists banks, some seem to even be properly cooperatives.Maybe itâs different in Europe? Iâm in America, so thatâs all I know.And the whole reason youâre stuck to banks are governments wanting to keep control, which youâre not magically getting away from with crypto-currencies, specially if one becomes a currency that actually matters.Well, I have âmagicallyâ gotten away from it, I have bought things with cryptocurrency without using a custodial wallet.I donât know what youâre referring to here, giving my bank password to any merchants doesnât makes sense.At least in America, the way it works is you enter your bank card information, which actually allows the merchant to charge as much money as they want from your account whenever they want, and you just hope they donât abuse it. And they do abuse it! Iâve had experiences in stores (little ones without the machine that says how much itâs going to be) where the merchant told me it would be a certain amount and then charged me more than that, and I didnât notice until I got home and read the receipt. And companies like Amazon use it to charge you for things like Amazon Prime that you never opted into.And thatâs more like protocol than currency, which for traditional ones arenât linked together, which is a pretty good strength.I think itâs fairly inherent to the way traditional currencies work. If itâs not cryptographic, and itâs not a physical object, thereâs only one way to prove that money exists: relying on a trusted authority. Itâs a fundamental problem.Early stages? Ethereum has been there since 2015, monero 2014, bitcoin 2009.In this context, early stages referred to adoption, not technological maturity. Since few people accept cryptocurrencies, yes, they are in âearly stagesâ.
(DIR) Post #AOPplqG3dw4IRV5oLw by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T17:44:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tree Secondly, "human factor" obviously has a role, because a human wrote that code that got deployed.Third, if dependence on corruptible humans is a scale (which I agree it is), how does it make sense to make Ethereum smart-contracts so black-and-white: you need the whole ecosystem to deploy a bugfix? What's up with that?
(DIR) Post #AOPplquTDgOWSq05LM by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T17:49:02Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@tree and finally, how is this not black-and-white thinking:> If you make a mistake in a smart-contract, it's mostly your fault and you can't expect someone else to deal with your mess.I would say it would make way more sense to build systems that recognize humans make mistakes (including in code), and therefore have built-in safety nets for that.Instead of systems like Ethereum that seem to be all-or-nothing, deploy-once-and-pray, whole-value-of-a-smart-contract-is-now-a-bug-bounty.
(DIR) Post #AOPqSHtjGk60KQt8xk by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T17:29:14Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@tree > Ethereum is a free, open, permissionless platformPlease, spare me the marketing blurb. I can read it myself on the website.You claimed that changing a smart-contract on Ethereum requires consensus of the whole ecosystem. Is that the case, or is that not the case?If it is the case, then deploying bugfixes (which *are* necessary) is insanely difficult.If it's not the case, why would you make that claim in the first place?
(DIR) Post #AOPqdjZ2kLQ1JsfeIC by rysiek@mastodon.technology
2022-10-09T11:47:48Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@tree "communicate mainly through money and value" wow what a word soup đ€Ł But you're basically proving my point. Web3 crap is about extracting money, not about decentralizing the Internet. Happy we could agree!