Create account

replied 2282d
fully onchain or hybrid on/off?
replied 2282d
Fully onchain
replied 2282d
I certainly respect your right to use the permissionless blockchain but it seems like a competitor with a more efficient storage system might make you regret this decision one day :)
replied 2282d
How would people access that storage system w/out getting censored?
replied 2282d
IPFS? It is in the early stages of running a node in the browser.
replied 2281d
IPFS is cool tech, but I feel less confident it will be here in 10 years than I do about BCH. It's a decent solution for non-text media, though still depends on someone hosting it.
John_Doe
replied 2281d
Exactly. This is an excellent use case. Just as important as money. Think about it, blockchain is giving is oor rights back. First sound money, now freedom of speech.
taowanzou
replied 2281d
BitTorrent exists for more than a decade, and there is no doubt it will for another. WebTorrent is the next step. Don’t be confused with overhyped IPFS.
replied 2281d
how come the rate of orhapaned no longer seeded torrent files is skyrocketing then?
taowanzou
replied 2279d
I have a solution: users who "like" a media content commit to store it locally and seed while online. The more likes any particular webtorrent post has, the longer it lives.
taowanzou
replied 2279d
As users engage more they can commit to not only store the content they like, but that of those whom they follow, and so on, by specifying the social depth (limit is an archival node)
En Fri Mand
replied 2281d
IPFS is better IMO because it makes sure there is no duplication and then it has a HTTP interface.
taowanzou
replied 2278d
also, you can can be a webtorrent peer from your browser right away, while ipfs-js is undercooked. I cannot stop thinking about ipfs as overhyped undercooked copycat of bittorent.
taowanzou
replied 2278d
what duplication? one hash -> one file anyway. also, ipfs is going to be integrated with filecoin, which I do not think is valuable in case of memo protocol.
En Fri Mand
replied 2278d
I guess you don't need to use Filecoin. Am I wrong?
taowanzou
replied 2278d
Right now filecoin is not ready, but afaik integration of filecoin with ipfs is the ultimate goal.
replied 2281d
Crypto torrent.
replied 2281d
That is true but it does not store files forever, only the files that are pinned will remain over time, the files stored on blockchain would be small but immutable and permanent.
replied 2281d
The Blockchain is a poor means of storage. Is there a desire to store a file forever on the blockchain? With OP_Return you have a timestamp of the file so as to prove that it existed.
replied 2281d
Under that argument, memo probably shouldn't be on the blockchain either.

slb
replied 2281d
To take the data down you have to take the entire currency down. This is extremely powerful.
1DYD9Y8EomqBapvM
replied 2279d
Words can be more powerful than even large sums of money. Worth of Martin Luther King Jr's speech? Worth of whistleblowers' data? Worth of censorship exposure?
replied 2281d
I view Memo as a nice proof-of-concept, but long form / high volume storage will be better served by other blockchains or solutions long term, and then this tech will fade out. My 2c.
replied 2281d
Perhaps multiple blockchains is the way things will go, but to me a single chain seems more likely.
En Fri Mand
replied 2281d
Would be very cool if we could have one chain for all. Though I think it's very unlikely/impossible,
Simon Van Gelder
replied 2281d
Judging from similar structures in nature, we're looking at pairs of coins.
slb
replied 2281d
I actually tried the "multiple blockchains" strategy with data in mind. It introduces more attack vectors than just IPFS. It might work in some cases tho.
replied 2281d
did you write up your findings anywhere? interested to learn more about how data could be stored on/with blockchain.
Barricade
replied 2281d
Maybe we need a way to incentive archival nodes. If eventually there's a lot of data, we could develop something like swarm nodes: parts of the blockchain stored in multiple nodes.
replied 2281d
it isn't a question of "right and wrong" it's a question of planning now so that in five years you're still relevant
replied 2281d
not all data must be stored on one single blockchain. "just because you can, doesn't mean you should." Why not long form hi def video content? because it'll get priced out one day.
replied 2281d
I think there's a good chance it's the other way around. Right now it's not cost effective to store hi def video on-chain, but eventually it might be.
replied 2281d
however it also appears to me that a competitor with a more efficient storage mechanism will also make you regret this decision one day, too :)
replied 2281d
I respect your right to use the permissionless peer-to-peer electronic cash blockchain as a means to store short messages as well
taowanzou
replied 2281d
Memo on blockchain provides good foundation. Social networking is incomplete without rich media, and it’s clearly impossible to support it onchain.
replied 2281d
Why memo (the protocol) is important is not due to storage but due to uncensorable communication and identity ownership. All OP_RETURN data can be pruned.
replied 2281d
It's uncensorable because it is stored on the blockchain. If IPFS suffices for storage then why would you need to use the blockchain at all?
replied 2281d
Because there isn't ownership in IPFS. The blockchain allows identity ownership. Also, all transactions are viewed the same as long as you pay, so communications (txs) aren't censored
replied 2281d
I would love to have a service to upload small files (other than images/video) and send direct download links, but I realize that I am one of very few people that would do that.
replied 2281d
We are sort of storing our comments (data) on the block chain forever now, so we are sort of making the case for storing stuff on the chain, see no reason we could not send small files
replied 2281d
This can all be pruned (and will be by most nodes except for archival ones)
Simon Van Gelder
replied 2281d
Just about there with un-prunable data storage on chain.
replied 2281d
That is the opposite of what you want
Simon Van Gelder
replied 2281d
I think you may miss-assume my implementation. It is exactly what I (and others) want.
replied 2281d
Doing so puts strain on other nodes (interfering with the cash aspect of BCH). You would force nodes to store arbitrary data forever with no remuneration.
Simon Van Gelder
replied 2281d
Persistent does not mean irrevocable. I have taken care to ensure that the mining incentives are not effected.
Simon Van Gelder
replied 2281d
Involves no changes to the protocol.
replied 2281d
So confused...would like to know more
Simon Van Gelder
replied 2281d
Scope keeps shifting upstream...tokens >> storage >> unprunable storage. Token proof of concept done ~ a week ago, data storage proof coming soon with generic whitepaper.
replied 2281d
File hashes works great to create proof of existence/notarization, example https://notary.bitcoin.com/ but most of the stuff done on the chain is because of censorship resistance.
replied 2281d
There are people that want to store small files on the block chain, but mostly to make absolutely sure that the file stays up forever, but yeah it is a fringe sort of use case.
taowanzou
replied 2281d
WebTorrent works in a browser right away.
Justicemate
replied 2281d
Storage is a function of the fees. Long posts will pay more.
I completely support this initiative by memo.
100%
slb
replied 2282d
There is no better censorship resistant mechanism than this. To censor the data you literally have to kill the monetary system.The bigger BCH gets,the more censorship resistant becomes