We have been using P2P to exchange data for decades. We know how to synchronise data with P2P, but the problem was that we couldn't mutate data in a decentralised manner - we always needed a (write) master and everybody had to trust him. That was until blockchains had been developed. Blockchains use P2P, a runtime layer, a defence mechanism, and some clever data structures on top of databases in order to get rid of the (write) master in a global scenario. Now we have a network of equal nodes, in which everybody can verify data mutation and as long as > 50% of the nodes play fair (=come to the same result) the blockchain works. It's indeed a very expensive composition of technologies just to get rid of that single trusted master server, but it might be worth it depending on the use-case. Today we know for sure of one use-case that's worth all the fuzz* and that's Bitcoin. Web3 is the term that's used to explore blockchain use-cases other than just payment.
What I was referring to was narrowed down to social networks and I think it does not bring much advantahes as there you already have the possibility to have cooperating nodes/servers with things like Diaspora, ActivityPub or the Zot protocol.
I am not so certain if Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are to be seen positively, but there seems to be a market for it.
Thing is: How do you prevent one single entity from running 50% of nodes? Given enough money this can become possible. And then?
I think you always need to trust someone. With currencies you trust the Central Bank, with real estate you trust contracts and courts etc.
Ah, scratch that, think I understand your point now: data independent of host.
Yes, this problem is solved. But I'm still not convinced. Maybe I don't see a proper use case, given that I consider Bitcoin rather a bad thing.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We have been using P2P to exchange data for decades. We know how to synchronise data with P2P, but the problem was that we couldn't mutate data in a decentralised manner - we always needed a (write) master and everybody had to trust him. That was until blockchains had been developed. Blockchains use P2P, a runtime layer, a defence mechanism, and some clever data structures on top of databases in order to get rid of the (write) master in a global scenario. Now we have a network of equal nodes, in which everybody can verify data mutation and as long as > 50% of the nodes play fair (=come to the same result) the blockchain works. It's indeed a very expensive composition of technologies just to get rid of that single trusted master server, but it might be worth it depending on the use-case. Today we know for sure of one use-case that's worth all the fuzz* and that's Bitcoin. Web3 is the term that's used to explore blockchain use-cases other than just payment.
* = I don't think that PoW is worth it.What I was referring to was narrowed down to social networks and I think it does not bring much advantahes as there you already have the possibility to have cooperating nodes/servers with things like Diaspora, ActivityPub or the Zot protocol.
I am not so certain if Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are to be seen positively, but there seems to be a market for it.
Thing is: How do you prevent one single entity from running 50% of nodes? Given enough money this can become possible. And then?
I think you always need to trust someone. With currencies you trust the Central Bank, with real estate you trust contracts and courts etc.
It's exactly the "given the money" thing. The solution is economical/statistical, not technical/deterministic.
The same you have with the networks I mentioned. Every node controls their own data, not one single instance.
Ah, scratch that, think I understand your point now: data independent of host.
Yes, this problem is solved. But I'm still not convinced. Maybe I don't see a proper use case, given that I consider Bitcoin rather a bad thing.