Gotcha, ah yes now I remember the difference between IPFS and Filecoin. one is the network protocol and the other is the blockchain network for it, so you can pay for decentralized S3 storage essentially: https://filecoin.io/ I have yet to try their mainnet or to work out if the performance and economics work, but that is one project I had my eye on. At any rate I think we're close to being able to build "Web 2.0" experiences on decentralized infrastructure. It sounds like you know a lot about this, have you toyed with any product ideas or architecture approaches?
you also hit on one of the things that needs to be changed too. who pays for it? renting an s3 is not the same as owning it. you are still subject to the deplatforming they are doing. also i suspect much of the 'money' in these sorts of coins right now is from illegal activity (money laundering, drug deals, etc). if the foundation of your thing is something wrong it is hard to get away from it. for example much of what the current platforms money comes from advertising. at its base advertising is manipulation and censorship of your competition. so the tech companies react to what their real customers want and mimic their customers.
also a true distributed system will be utterly vile. you talk to people who are the censors in facebook, youtube, twitter etc. they see some shit. child porn, executions, rapes, torture, beheadings, etc etc. a true distributed system will not filter that. that means you better be ready for it. the new twist they added was 'misinformation' which they decide what that means. now they wandered into the territory of censorship of ideas not just vile things because they have conflated the idea of 'ideas are vile too' with actions.
also do not think these guys making this tech are good guys. they are into censorship and see no problem with it. you can usually see it with things like 'code of conduct' rules (ipfs has that). It is little more than 'diversity training' in techy talk. they will want to control it at the gateways and software into their networks they create. they will say all nice things up front about how 'you can do what you want'. then turn around a few years later and yank the rug from under you. any true distributed network needs to be resistant to that. but that means the software has to be 100% open and no one group controls it. once one group 'controls' the code they can and will lock others out. one group for a wildly different bit of software i keep an eye on basically chased away any good devs just simply with their shitty attitudes and arbitrary rules for thee not me ideas.
most of what i do these days is a tech related to the kind of thing blockchain does but it is not blockchain but just streaming events. the encrypted bit is not needed for that particular application.
For this to work decently latency and search-ability are key features. those bits will also be spots where bad actors will try to control things.
Gotcha, ah yes now I remember the difference between IPFS and Filecoin. one is the network protocol and the other is the blockchain network for it, so you can pay for decentralized S3 storage essentially: https://filecoin.io/ I have yet to try their mainnet or to work out if the performance and economics work, but that is one project I had my eye on. At any rate I think we're close to being able to build "Web 2.0" experiences on decentralized infrastructure. It sounds like you know a lot about this, have you toyed with any product ideas or architecture approaches?
you also hit on one of the things that needs to be changed too. who pays for it? renting an s3 is not the same as owning it. you are still subject to the deplatforming they are doing. also i suspect much of the 'money' in these sorts of coins right now is from illegal activity (money laundering, drug deals, etc). if the foundation of your thing is something wrong it is hard to get away from it. for example much of what the current platforms money comes from advertising. at its base advertising is manipulation and censorship of your competition. so the tech companies react to what their real customers want and mimic their customers.
also a true distributed system will be utterly vile. you talk to people who are the censors in facebook, youtube, twitter etc. they see some shit. child porn, executions, rapes, torture, beheadings, etc etc. a true distributed system will not filter that. that means you better be ready for it. the new twist they added was 'misinformation' which they decide what that means. now they wandered into the territory of censorship of ideas not just vile things because they have conflated the idea of 'ideas are vile too' with actions.
also do not think these guys making this tech are good guys. they are into censorship and see no problem with it. you can usually see it with things like 'code of conduct' rules (ipfs has that). It is little more than 'diversity training' in techy talk. they will want to control it at the gateways and software into their networks they create. they will say all nice things up front about how 'you can do what you want'. then turn around a few years later and yank the rug from under you. any true distributed network needs to be resistant to that. but that means the software has to be 100% open and no one group controls it. once one group 'controls' the code they can and will lock others out. one group for a wildly different bit of software i keep an eye on basically chased away any good devs just simply with their shitty attitudes and arbitrary rules for thee not me ideas.
most of what i do these days is a tech related to the kind of thing blockchain does but it is not blockchain but just streaming events. the encrypted bit is not needed for that particular application.
For this to work decently latency and search-ability are key features. those bits will also be spots where bad actors will try to control things.