Before decentralized protocols emerge, legal opposition suppresses centralized approaches If informal processes are essential for the system, you have a good fit for a protocol Doesn’t always happen. Many recommend VPN for file sharing, but not enough to justify formalizing
-
Show this thread
-
Even in 2013, privacy advocates recommended using Bitcoin fog to tumble coins for the sake of anonymity. Very clear informal process signaling demand for Zcash and other privacy coins.
1 reply 3 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
Informal human processes signaling “market fit” for a decentralized protocol: • Link-only mp3 blogs → metadata-only file sharing search (Napster) • Manually maintained OpenNap server lists → Kazaa-style network topology • Manual bitcoin tumbling → privacy coins
1 reply 3 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
Looking for crucial informal human processes is mainly valuable for answering what shouldn’t protocolized. Tons of people tried to layer I2P onto file sharing protocols (see iMule), but most didn’t actually want slower speeds for greater anonymity.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
IMO, BitTorrent would be 10x better if a token incentivized seeding. The fact that private trackers enforce ratio requirements (upload as much as you download) doesn’t invalidate the value of a token, it validates it!https://medium.com/@jbackus/what-if-bittorrent-had-a-token-13d62a590aa7 …
6 replies 8 retweets 34 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @backus
There's already some good work done by Blockstream on paying for packets of data with Bitcoin payment channels. Why do you immediately jump to the assumption that some distinct stand alone token is required?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NotASithLord
Honest question before I answer: did you read the blog post?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @NotASithLord
If you buy the "fat protocol" argument then you might view tokens as an incentive to build a system like this. Why would I spend years building this with BTC? Tokens also make it easier to experiment early on at low cost + fork your own system if you screw up
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @backus
Who cares what's convenient for you? Even if we naively assume it's easier to build it on something else, the only thing that matters is the consumer. Who wants to use an even less stable and supported single purpose token instead of just actual money if both are available?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
The creator cares what is convenient. It matters a lot The whole idea here is that users don't have to know a token is under the hood unless they want to use it The ability to experiment+fork in the early period of building is a huge difference. Million dollar difference, maybe
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.