$1M to build decentralized social networks(requestforsocialnetworks.com)
requestforsocialnetworks.com
$1M to build decentralized social networks
https://www.requestforsocialnetworks.com/
133 comments
I had the same thoughts. I'm really getting sick of seeing applications move to the blockchain that have absolutely no business being there. Sure, a ledger makes sense...you never want to remove or change the records.
The blockchain is a really terrible medium for a social network. Maybe some kind of hybrid where the blockchain entries point/link to a centralized (or federated) location, but, then, why not just build your own protocol that doesn't use the blockchain? Just build it over Matrix or something.
What does the blockchain provide, other than a buzzword?
The blockchain is a really terrible medium for a social network. Maybe some kind of hybrid where the blockchain entries point/link to a centralized (or federated) location, but, then, why not just build your own protocol that doesn't use the blockchain? Just build it over Matrix or something.
What does the blockchain provide, other than a buzzword?
> Maybe some kind of hybrid where the blockchain entries point/link to a centralized (or federated) location...
Well what makes me uncomfortable about this type of data being decentralized is that I want to guarantee a delete or edit. To do that on a decentralized network you need to have a way to guarantee that those edits propagate to machines that you do not control. Is there a way to ensure this?
Well what makes me uncomfortable about this type of data being decentralized is that I want to guarantee a delete or edit. To do that on a decentralized network you need to have a way to guarantee that those edits propagate to machines that you do not control. Is there a way to ensure this?
You can’t guarsntee that with any service. Even if you trust the website to delete it, it can still be cached elsewhere.
I'm not saying that the data can't exists anywhere. You can't prevent a state actor from caching the entire internet or a stalker from saving all your content. BUT you can prevent someone who has not done that already. Which is more common.
[deleted]
But for places like Reddit and Hackernews, it might help prevent content from being censored
On the other hand, it might also make it impossible to moderate the content.
the voting system could address that...
Moderation is not only about voting. The titles of submissions are regularly edited, for example to add year numbers to add context when an article was published.
Of course such edits could be stored in new blocks with the information to replace the title of previous blocks. However, it would not be possible to delete any content.
Of course such edits could be stored in new blocks with the information to replace the title of previous blocks. However, it would not be possible to delete any content.
So you answered your own question... just don't look at the blocks that are marked as "outdated/spam/etc" if you don't want to (but history would still be preserved)
I did not ask any question, I stated a fact. But yes, history will be preserved. However, the point of moderation is also to delete inappropriate content, not only hide it.
Blockchain makes perfect sense as a PKI and for URIs. You don't actually hold state there, just public keys and the location of the actual data.
You don't have to store the data on the blockchain, you can store a pointer, to a storage solution like IPFS, and you have the control of what to show and to whom.
[deleted]
you don't use the blockchain in blockstack to store data, only to create an identity. data is still stored the old fashioned way. the difference is, when there is decentralized identity, it can be tied for example, to your own encrypted data storage. Not sure I am explaining this right, but that's my understanding
[deleted]
So first I would suggest some sort of global service for translating user friendly names to internet addresses. Something that might have a bit of centralization at the top, but ultimately a decentralized network of authority of sub-namespaces and protocols for building servers that can translate these names to addresses. This system should also support attaching small bits of metadata to these names.
On top of this I propose building a protocol for store and forward messaging. Something where it is possible for anyone to develop a server that speaks this protocol. Instances of these servers can be registered in the namespace above and this is how these servers can find each other to push data around. Anyone should be able to run these servers, providing service just for themselves, small communities or even large organizations, businesses, institutions or resold commercial services.
Lastly I propose an application layer on top of this. This application layer has two components:
1) A suite of standard protocols for user agents to contact these servers and download user data 2) A suite of standard protocols for rich content, encryption or group distribution
From these pieces, it would be totally possible to build a giant decentralized social network that could present the same sort of data we see on social networks. While things could start with simple messaging, similar features to what we find on social networks could be built.
Of course there's the problem of bad actors and abuse, but it seems this could be solved by merely blocking all communication except for that from a list of known senders... We could call this the friends list.
It would be a lot of work to build and get right, it's a shame nothing like this exists today.
On top of this I propose building a protocol for store and forward messaging. Something where it is possible for anyone to develop a server that speaks this protocol. Instances of these servers can be registered in the namespace above and this is how these servers can find each other to push data around. Anyone should be able to run these servers, providing service just for themselves, small communities or even large organizations, businesses, institutions or resold commercial services.
Lastly I propose an application layer on top of this. This application layer has two components:
1) A suite of standard protocols for user agents to contact these servers and download user data 2) A suite of standard protocols for rich content, encryption or group distribution
From these pieces, it would be totally possible to build a giant decentralized social network that could present the same sort of data we see on social networks. While things could start with simple messaging, similar features to what we find on social networks could be built.
Of course there's the problem of bad actors and abuse, but it seems this could be solved by merely blocking all communication except for that from a list of known senders... We could call this the friends list.
It would be a lot of work to build and get right, it's a shame nothing like this exists today.
So: DNS, NNTP, IMAP, RSS?
Xor, <whoosh>, as the joke flies over my head.
Xor, <whoosh>, as the joke flies over my head.
> So first I would suggest some sort of global service for translating user friendly names to internet addresses.
You can't do this without having a central authority (which people don't want to be beholden to), making names cost money (or be otherwise difficult), or accepting squatters. People aren't going to pay for names and you've gained nothing if you centralize the name store. People aren't going to accept the immobility of federation like they do with email (and it still gravitates towards centralized authorities).
I think we're just going to have to accept large hard-to-gen and hard-to-read identities (e.g. base32'd pub keys like onion service names) and we each "tag" friendly names to them locally as we choose.
You can't do this without having a central authority (which people don't want to be beholden to), making names cost money (or be otherwise difficult), or accepting squatters. People aren't going to pay for names and you've gained nothing if you centralize the name store. People aren't going to accept the immobility of federation like they do with email (and it still gravitates towards centralized authorities).
I think we're just going to have to accept large hard-to-gen and hard-to-read identities (e.g. base32'd pub keys like onion service names) and we each "tag" friendly names to them locally as we choose.
If you can share those tags (and why not?), now you have decentralized "authorities" for names. "Squatting" is only a problem if someone else can take an identity after I've used it within the service. Squatting on previously-unused-in-the-service IRL identities doesn't matter at all.
> If you can share those tags (and why not?), now you have decentralized "authorities" for names.
Until an indexing service becomes a defacto standard, once again making it centralized. This is what I meant about federation (i.e. sharing your name lists) gravitating towards centralization.
> Squatting on previously-unused-in-the-service IRL identities doesn't matter at all.
It does when I can register thousands and thousands of names. This is why it must be too difficult for squatters and not too difficult for users.
Until an indexing service becomes a defacto standard, once again making it centralized. This is what I meant about federation (i.e. sharing your name lists) gravitating towards centralization.
> Squatting on previously-unused-in-the-service IRL identities doesn't matter at all.
It does when I can register thousands and thousands of names. This is why it must be too difficult for squatters and not too difficult for users.
There isn't a point to generating thousands and thousands of UUIDs, but it's only the UUIDs that need to be reserved after use. The human-readable names needn't be universal. If too many of your tags point to squatters, then no one will want to share them.
Global address service could be namecoin. Message storage / forwarding / encryption could be secure scuttlebutt.
Personally I see no reason to make global addressing mandatory -- could be optional for those who want to be globally findable. Otherwise, use ssb pubkey as identifier and only connect with immediate FoF network.
Personally I see no reason to make global addressing mandatory -- could be optional for those who want to be globally findable. Otherwise, use ssb pubkey as identifier and only connect with immediate FoF network.
Just look at protocol labs, they're building all that stuff
Nobody needs a social network anymore, whether it is decentralized (Mastodon, Diaspora) or centralized (Facebook, Twitter). I think the social media bubble burst a long time ago and we just didn't realize it. I also have a Mastodon account, but used it only for a short time. I speak now only for myself personally, social networks bore me quite and I have no more interest to sign up somewhere.
Nobody needs a social network anymore
This sort of comment is why people in tech are very often seen as being incredibly bad at solving non-trivial social problems by people outside of our industry. Somewhere between a third and a half of all the people on Earth see enough value in social networks to use one regularly. There are plenty of problems with the way networks work, and what they do to our mental health, but the notion that no one should use them any more is plain stupid.
This sort of comment is why people in tech are very often seen as being incredibly bad at solving non-trivial social problems by people outside of our industry. Somewhere between a third and a half of all the people on Earth see enough value in social networks to use one regularly. There are plenty of problems with the way networks work, and what they do to our mental health, but the notion that no one should use them any more is plain stupid.
Somewhere between a third and a half of all the people on Earth see enough value in social networks to have signed up for one at some point.
Somewhere between a third and a half of all the people on Earth use a product designed to addict them.
I agree in general though - they can be useful, and they can fill a real purpose.
Somewhere between a third and a half of all the people on Earth use a product designed to addict them.
I agree in general though - they can be useful, and they can fill a real purpose.
I think a better argument is that between a third and a half of all people on Earth see enough value in some elements of social networks to sign up for them.
A lot of people I know only use Facebook for messenger. Some only use it for private groups. Some for events. Some for the newsfeed. Those people use twitter, instagram, whatsapp, snapchat, or discord for the features they don't use on Facebook.
IMO instead of looking for a service which could distribute the back-end servers of a single social network we should be encouraging the distribution of features, and make sure they can interact with each other smoothly.
A lot of people I know only use Facebook for messenger. Some only use it for private groups. Some for events. Some for the newsfeed. Those people use twitter, instagram, whatsapp, snapchat, or discord for the features they don't use on Facebook.
IMO instead of looking for a service which could distribute the back-end servers of a single social network we should be encouraging the distribution of features, and make sure they can interact with each other smoothly.
Somewhere between a third and a half of all the people on Earth see enough value in social networks to have signed up for one at some point.
I was referring to daily- and monthly-active-users numbers. That's people who sign in and interact with their accounts at least once a day or a month respectively. Those are the important numbers, and they're a fairly accurate representative of the number of people who currently use social media. I think it's fair to say people who stop seeing any positive value in their accounts stop being monthly active users.
I was referring to daily- and monthly-active-users numbers. That's people who sign in and interact with their accounts at least once a day or a month respectively. Those are the important numbers, and they're a fairly accurate representative of the number of people who currently use social media. I think it's fair to say people who stop seeing any positive value in their accounts stop being monthly active users.
> Somewhere between a third and a half of all the people on Earth see enough value in social networks to use one regularly.
That's a logical fallacy. You cannot possibly interpret the reasons why people use the social networks. They very well may feel forced to use them in order to get a job or otherwise be socially accepted. You call that "value" perhaps - they use it to get a job, therefore providing value. But that is an intentionally misleading line of thought and leaves the reader less informed than when they started reading.
The situation is a lot more complex than "providing value". People use social networks because they have been artificially forced into society as a near-necessity. Our society does not actually need them. But because we have them, people must use them. That they use them does not mean they derive value from them. They may not see it that way (I don't), and in aggregate, it does not seem to provide value to society at all. I would even argue that social networks have provided detrimental effects to society overall, and produced negative value.
That's a logical fallacy. You cannot possibly interpret the reasons why people use the social networks. They very well may feel forced to use them in order to get a job or otherwise be socially accepted. You call that "value" perhaps - they use it to get a job, therefore providing value. But that is an intentionally misleading line of thought and leaves the reader less informed than when they started reading.
The situation is a lot more complex than "providing value". People use social networks because they have been artificially forced into society as a near-necessity. Our society does not actually need them. But because we have them, people must use them. That they use them does not mean they derive value from them. They may not see it that way (I don't), and in aggregate, it does not seem to provide value to society at all. I would even argue that social networks have provided detrimental effects to society overall, and produced negative value.
> That they use them does not mean they derive value from them.
Yes it does, necessarily. This is basic biology, economics and self preservation. It may be temporal (i.e. good in short, bad in long) but nonetheless, people do not do things they do not value.
Yes it does, necessarily. This is basic biology, economics and self preservation. It may be temporal (i.e. good in short, bad in long) but nonetheless, people do not do things they do not value.
> ... people do not do things they do not value.
They most certainly do. You are confusing doing X because one values doing X with doing X because they really want Y. Be it biology, economics, or (especially) self-preservation—among many other possible rationales—it does not follow that seeking any of those Ys means one values doing the X one believes necessary to get to the Y.
They most certainly do. You are confusing doing X because one values doing X with doing X because they really want Y. Be it biology, economics, or (especially) self-preservation—among many other possible rationales—it does not follow that seeking any of those Ys means one values doing the X one believes necessary to get to the Y.
Exactly. It's called "revealed preferences" in economics: the theory that what humans value (their utility function) is revealed by their behavior -- what they choose to spend time on.
>People use social networks because they have been artificially forced into society as a near-necessity
I mean, I don't think my mother chats with her COPD support group or shares pictures of her grandchildren on Facebook with our relatives because society has artificially forced her to do so, but OK. I guess she's just a slave to the machine, then.
> That they use them does not mean they derive value from them.
It kind of does, though. Social media is just an umbrella term for platforms that allow integrated, multimedia communication between a network of accounts. All other valid and legitimate criticisms aside, people find value in social media because of the people they network with, and because social media platforms tend to be more user friendly and accessible to the mainstream than were forums, email and telephone.
I mean, I don't think my mother chats with her COPD support group or shares pictures of her grandchildren on Facebook with our relatives because society has artificially forced her to do so, but OK. I guess she's just a slave to the machine, then.
> That they use them does not mean they derive value from them.
It kind of does, though. Social media is just an umbrella term for platforms that allow integrated, multimedia communication between a network of accounts. All other valid and legitimate criticisms aside, people find value in social media because of the people they network with, and because social media platforms tend to be more user friendly and accessible to the mainstream than were forums, email and telephone.
Facebook alone has over 2 billion users, and keeps growing. I can't see how it is a bubble that has burst.
I've met many people in developing countries that don't have running water, or indoor sanitation, but still access Facebook through a cheap smartphone. It's important to a great many people.
Personally I find Facebook extremely useful; I just hate the implementation, which seems to be a buggy mix of dark patterns which attempt to manipulate my state of mind and do bad things with my personal data.
A realistic open competitor would be extremely welcome, but first you have to somehow get past the network effect.
I've met many people in developing countries that don't have running water, or indoor sanitation, but still access Facebook through a cheap smartphone. It's important to a great many people.
Personally I find Facebook extremely useful; I just hate the implementation, which seems to be a buggy mix of dark patterns which attempt to manipulate my state of mind and do bad things with my personal data.
A realistic open competitor would be extremely welcome, but first you have to somehow get past the network effect.
I agree, for me it has become an advanced phone book more or less. I use it as a directory for those I don’t regularly talk to via phone, text or in person.
I prefer email for this purpose.
> Nobody needs a social network anymore
Nobody needs another Facebook or Twitter.
The future of humans communicating, however, is wide open. Anything that succeeds on Blockstack will not be a clone of something that already exists, but rather something novel, even something that could only exist on the platform.
I've said it before, but the closest thing to the future of social networking that I've seen is Slack: Right now, outside of its marketed purpose, it's mostly used as an extension of existing online communities or as a way for people to stay in touch after departing a company, but the way it's it's centered around distributed groups is powerful, much more so than the way groups were grafted onto the core topology of Facebook.
A successful decentralized social network will not look like Slack, either. Just as Slack drew from IRC and Facebook drew from MySpace, a new network will have to draw on all of these and more, synthesizing a new experience that offers genuine value.
Nobody needs another Facebook or Twitter.
The future of humans communicating, however, is wide open. Anything that succeeds on Blockstack will not be a clone of something that already exists, but rather something novel, even something that could only exist on the platform.
I've said it before, but the closest thing to the future of social networking that I've seen is Slack: Right now, outside of its marketed purpose, it's mostly used as an extension of existing online communities or as a way for people to stay in touch after departing a company, but the way it's it's centered around distributed groups is powerful, much more so than the way groups were grafted onto the core topology of Facebook.
A successful decentralized social network will not look like Slack, either. Just as Slack drew from IRC and Facebook drew from MySpace, a new network will have to draw on all of these and more, synthesizing a new experience that offers genuine value.
I live 2000 miles away from my parents. I have 2 kids, my parents LOVE the small insights they get into their grandkids lives that happen on social media.
I could lose the no win political debates, the self-aggrandizing from my friends, the memes, but seeing my friends kids grow, my parents seeing my kids grow. That's cool.
I could lose the no win political debates, the self-aggrandizing from my friends, the memes, but seeing my friends kids grow, my parents seeing my kids grow. That's cool.
Do you use FB to share those moments? Wouldn't be other tools better for that? Even when is owned by FB seems to me that WhatsApp would do a better job at this.
Try the Path app, exact use case
The billion plus active users on Facebook would like to disagree with you. It's undeniable that social networks are needed and are as popular as ever. It's not always the same ones (more people moved to Instagram) but the overall number is definitely higher than ever.
There is simply no replacement solution for staying in touch with people outside of phone number based solutions à la WhatsApp (which you could argue is also a social network).
There is simply no replacement solution for staying in touch with people outside of phone number based solutions à la WhatsApp (which you could argue is also a social network).
Do you mind elaborating on why do you think social media was a bubble?
Gladly. But I am not a scientist or start-up founder who may have a better insight into the subject.
When I registered with social networks at the beginning of the Web 2.0 hype, it was all exciting and new. There were many offers and most companies (MySpace and Co had no idea how much potential was available for advertising and marketing). After that came Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn etc. That's when it all got more professional. You went from a user to a customer, from a customer to a record with which you could earn money. It's getting around and everybody's jumping on the $$$-train. Youtube is like a TV channel, only that runs more advertising there and Instagram can also be seen as a advertising portal. Facebook dug its own grave because it became too greedy. Since only old people hang out on Snapchat, nobody wants to go there anymore. Not even my little nephew wants to join a social network and that's the point where I see it as a bubble that burst.
Social networks are like alpha versions of open World Crafting Games on Steam. there are hundreds of offers, but nobody wants them anymore.
When I registered with social networks at the beginning of the Web 2.0 hype, it was all exciting and new. There were many offers and most companies (MySpace and Co had no idea how much potential was available for advertising and marketing). After that came Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn etc. That's when it all got more professional. You went from a user to a customer, from a customer to a record with which you could earn money. It's getting around and everybody's jumping on the $$$-train. Youtube is like a TV channel, only that runs more advertising there and Instagram can also be seen as a advertising portal. Facebook dug its own grave because it became too greedy. Since only old people hang out on Snapchat, nobody wants to go there anymore. Not even my little nephew wants to join a social network and that's the point where I see it as a bubble that burst.
Social networks are like alpha versions of open World Crafting Games on Steam. there are hundreds of offers, but nobody wants them anymore.
If I had the money, I'd pledge $1B to erase social networks from our lives.
If you feel that strongly, stop using them. I stopped using Facebook a year ago, and now my most social sites are YouTube and reddit. Neither are as toxic for me as Facebook was. You won’t save others, but it’s easy to save yourself.
Not to doubt you, since I don't know your experience, but I use Facebook to keep up with distant family members and old college friends. I check in about once a day, and if we find ourselves in the same town we notice, and make plans to meet up. That sums up 99% of my use of Facebook, and it's absolutely benign for me. No toxicity at all, from my pov. Maybe it depends on your social circle?
I did stop using them, years ago. YouTube I tolerate because I disable comments. Reddit is a cesspool.
There are several valid places to draw the line between what is and isn't a social network, but aren't there enough similarities between Reddit and HN to not draw it between the two? Subreddits is the main difference I think, but that sort of thing can't be a requirement because Twitter doesn't have something similar.
Sure, but HN is civilized, Reddit is not.
> now my most social sites are YouTube and reddit
So out of the fire, and into the frying pan.
So out of the fire, and into the frying pan.
I thought this was weird too, because both YouTube and reddit are quite addictive, just like Facebook. YouTube's recommendations are an endless pit of wasted time unless one takes care to view only a small, curated set of channels with daily time limits. As for reddit, it's quite noisy (like Twitter) and attracts a lot of what I consider low value comments and posts (the kinds that are discouraged on HN and get ruthlessly downvoted to oblivion here).
On YouTube and reddit I am a “content creator” and my specialty is 3D printed robots. I am good at what I do and people appreciate it, so I don’t get a lot of trolls. Also it’s all open source so people tend to just really appreciate my posts!
Just don't read the Youtube comments.
Sometimes they're pretty funny. One just has to remember that those aren't real people. They're all Martian bots.
Just stop now and give your money to Beaker Browser
https://beakerbrowser.com/
https://beakerbrowser.com/
I finally looked into this yesterday. It promises amazing things and is well on it's way to delivery. I'm excited to see where this is going.
That's a really interesting project. Are there any plans to incorporate more human readable addresses? I can see how this could be misused by forking a financial institution website and imperceptibly change one letter.
The spec for using DNS is in the process of being written up. Beaker is already using the .well-known part of the spec. See https://github.com/pfrazee/DEPs/blob/e391a04d9a96ddaf3e5a6fd...
Care to suggest why?
IMHO it is the best bet for actually changing the foundation of the internet back to a distributed model.
> IMHO it is the best bet for actually changing the foundation of the internet back to a distributed model.
What does the "foundation of the internet" mean in this context? The internet's structure and its protocols haven't really changed. Are you confusing the centralization of user attention via network effect for centralization of the actual network?
What does the "foundation of the internet" mean in this context? The internet's structure and its protocols haven't really changed. Are you confusing the centralization of user attention via network effect for centralization of the actual network?
Web applications as we write them today are largely centralized systems with centralized ownership of data and small groups of people owning the lion's share of the traffic/data/user attention etc.
Beaker and dat are built on the same base protocols as the traditional web (tcp/udp), but also add higher level protocols for changing the centralized power dynamic I mentioned above. The key, IMO, is that there is a good story for users around transitioning from the centralized web into the decentralized web because of the shared foundation.
I see the confusion. When I say "foundation" I mean how we build applications, not the underlying protocols. Maybe I should have said "foundation of web application design", or something like that.
Beaker and dat are built on the same base protocols as the traditional web (tcp/udp), but also add higher level protocols for changing the centralized power dynamic I mentioned above. The key, IMO, is that there is a good story for users around transitioning from the centralized web into the decentralized web because of the shared foundation.
I see the confusion. When I say "foundation" I mean how we build applications, not the underlying protocols. Maybe I should have said "foundation of web application design", or something like that.
One of the questions is: "describe your social network in 50 characters or less."
"Facebook but decentralised" is already 26 characters so that seems like a bit of a tight limit. I suppose it'll help find people who have any marketing nouse, which is the actual challenge for a project like this, not technology.
"Facebook but decentralised" is already 26 characters so that seems like a bit of a tight limit. I suppose it'll help find people who have any marketing nouse, which is the actual challenge for a project like this, not technology.
Last question:
"Please implement the social network in 5 weeks or less, GitHub link to code too please"
"Please implement the social network in 5 weeks or less, GitHub link to code too please"
That's super ridiculous. You wouldn't want to use a decentralized social platform in a production environment that's only got 5 weeks of development work in it.
As an aside, do the submissions have to use the Blockchain? There are already a ton of good decentralized social platforms that make no use of a blockchain whatsoever, and the majority of them inter-federate with one another.
As an aside, do the submissions have to use the Blockchain? There are already a ton of good decentralized social platforms that make no use of a blockchain whatsoever, and the majority of them inter-federate with one another.
Sorry if it wasn't clear that it was a joke.
A lot of these ICOs want developers to invest their money AND build the product for free.
I agree, there are a lot of good non-blockchain solutions to this... like most ICOs
A lot of these ICOs want developers to invest their money AND build the product for free.
I agree, there are a lot of good non-blockchain solutions to this... like most ICOs
Blockchains are good for one thing and one thing only. Censorship resistant money exchanges. That's it.
These guys launched the same concept last year. For $25m and they literly have nobody using the platform.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/blockstack-partners-vcs...
These guys launched the same concept last year. For $25m and they literly have nobody using the platform.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/blockstack-partners-vcs...
How does blockstack compare to alternatives like Dat (https://datproject.org/) and IPFS (https://ipfs.io/)?
Or ActivityPub (https://activitypub.rocks/), a W3C recommended spec:
https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/6785
https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/6785
Dat and IPFS are decentralized file systems. Instead, blockstack is a network for decentralized application. It offers identity, storage and a way to transfer tokens. With blockstack you can easily create apps where users can sign-in in seconds and store all their data where they want.
Dat and IPFS can be used to build applications too -- checkout out e.g. https://peerpad.net and the things on https://hashbase.io
To add to that, here's a whole list of websites and apps built with Dat
https://github.com/beakerbrowser/explore
https://github.com/beakerbrowser/explore
Similar list for IPFS projects: https://github.com/ipfs/awesome-ipfs
So why not just throw the $1M at Diaspora or Mastodon?
They use their own auth/storage systems. Browserstack is simply giving a tiny amount of the money they raised to build their own platform.
If I was browser stack I'd be offering a lot more than $1 million considering how important this is to their platform.
If I was browser stack I'd be offering a lot more than $1 million considering how important this is to their platform.
Because it's mostly self advertising, not an attempt to really solve someone's problem?
They want it built on their tech here: https://blockstack.org/. "New Internet" aye? Is this an based on an episode of Silicon Valley?
Muneeb Ali, Blockstack co-founder here. I'm a technical consultant to the Silicon Valley show (season 5) along with my co-founder Ryan. So yes there is a link to the show but the project is not based on the show :-)
Blockstack was in the R&D phase until early 2017 (building the core tech & infrastructure), we launched our browser last summer and now have decentralized apps built on the platform that are live. These apps can scale to millions of users today. We're excited about enabling developers to build new apps like decentralized social networks.
Blockstack was in the R&D phase until early 2017 (building the core tech & infrastructure), we launched our browser last summer and now have decentralized apps built on the platform that are live. These apps can scale to millions of users today. We're excited about enabling developers to build new apps like decentralized social networks.
Quick question, do you really think $100k is enough money to build a social network?
If so, how much time and people is needed for such task?
P.S. I'm convinced it's not enough money. It will take over a year just to have something working and usable and it will take more than 5 people to do that.
P.S. I'm convinced it's not enough money. It will take over a year just to have something working and usable and it will take more than 5 people to do that.
Typically yes. You'll need to build a lot of the components of a social network.
With Blockstack most of the heavy-lifting is done for you by the underlying platform (identity, auth, storage -- all three decentralized).
We've seen people build functioning chat apps and alternative to Google docs within few months. See stealthy.im and graphitedocs.com
With Blockstack most of the heavy-lifting is done for you by the underlying platform (identity, auth, storage -- all three decentralized).
We've seen people build functioning chat apps and alternative to Google docs within few months. See stealthy.im and graphitedocs.com
I built Mastodon alone for a year for like $600/mo until it got popular. Now I'm getting more ($3k/mo from Patreon) but I don't think I'm even anywhere close to hitting $100k. So it's possible :P
Wow, that's cool. I sincerely wish you the best of luck. I've long thought that a distributed, decentralized Internet (more the backbone and last mile replacement) could be a powerful and game changing thing.
Hi muneeb, cool to see you here. I like the idea of virtual blockchain machines from blockstack. How difficult it is to port projects being built on eth or Ark for example, to blockstack?
Quick question - what are the terms of the $100k funding? (grant, SAFE, equity, loan, etc ?)
I still believe this approach is not optimal in the practical sense. I believe the issue is having a common and standard source of truth for user metadata. Social platforms are secondary to this problem.
I would suggest we come up with an authentication system that can scale across several small technical groups of people, perhaps something like OpenLDAP. Then lets put a few gateways in front of it like SAML2/OAuth/whatever. Set up replication between a few technical folks in a small circle of trust. If a friend leaves the circle, exclude their node from replication.
Now put whatever trendy web app, chat app, misc app in front of that authentication. The apps can come and go, but the authentication data, email contacts, phone numbers, all maintained in one authentication system and highly replicated.
Each application should be coded in such a way that users own their data and are prompted to download backups. Data retention policies should be very obvious to the end user and they should know this is not a long term archive for their binary data.
Each small group of technical folks share their platform with their circle of technical and non technical friends. Each geek pulls a copy of the backups in the even a friend wants to leave the circle. Different geeks in the circle can manage different pieces of the platform or different applications.
At least, that is how I would approach this problem. YMMV.
I would suggest we come up with an authentication system that can scale across several small technical groups of people, perhaps something like OpenLDAP. Then lets put a few gateways in front of it like SAML2/OAuth/whatever. Set up replication between a few technical folks in a small circle of trust. If a friend leaves the circle, exclude their node from replication.
Now put whatever trendy web app, chat app, misc app in front of that authentication. The apps can come and go, but the authentication data, email contacts, phone numbers, all maintained in one authentication system and highly replicated.
Each application should be coded in such a way that users own their data and are prompted to download backups. Data retention policies should be very obvious to the end user and they should know this is not a long term archive for their binary data.
Each small group of technical folks share their platform with their circle of technical and non technical friends. Each geek pulls a copy of the backups in the even a friend wants to leave the circle. Different geeks in the circle can manage different pieces of the platform or different applications.
At least, that is how I would approach this problem. YMMV.
Like everyone else, I'm building one. But I'm not hung up on distributed storage or any of that. It's just a simple way for people to host social network rooms from their always-on home computers if they want. The gist: app w/ statically compiled Tor (separate lib started at [0]), room config flexible enough to build different social network types, communicate via gRPC over Tor onion services (protos at [1]), and make it so dead simple that it just works (mobile remotes to home onion service).
I think people are worrying so much about network and storage and uptime for ephemeral machines that they are missing the forest for the trees here. Just get a decent platform and iterate from there. At first, you don't have to federate, conform to a protocol, distribute data, etc. But if you are building these things, why not at least offer anonymity?
0 - https://github.com/cretz/bine 1 - https://github.com/cretz/yukup/tree/master/yukup/pb/proto
I think people are worrying so much about network and storage and uptime for ephemeral machines that they are missing the forest for the trees here. Just get a decent platform and iterate from there. At first, you don't have to federate, conform to a protocol, distribute data, etc. But if you are building these things, why not at least offer anonymity?
0 - https://github.com/cretz/bine 1 - https://github.com/cretz/yukup/tree/master/yukup/pb/proto
The big problems in social media are already decentralized. Tribalism (also termed as filter bubbles), the spread of false information, and outrage as a mechanism of virality all originate with people in a distributed fashion.
Facebook selling ads based on demographics is centralized but it seems to me like a small part of what's messed up about social networks.
Facebook selling ads based on demographics is centralized but it seems to me like a small part of what's messed up about social networks.
There is an interesting experiment in the Bitcoin (Cash) camp called Memo.cash, which mimics early Twitter using Bitcoin's blockchain. Posts need to spend a few satoshis to be posted and you cal also tip others. Pretty neat!
Didn’t Siraj Raval make something like this in his book on dApps?
It exists now, today. Use it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ1O_gmPneI
It is simply a platform on top of the Web same as Wordpress, that anyone can install. It can even run on local wireless mesh networks.
Oh and it’s totally Free and Open Source and any community or startup can use it to build apps to put in the store.
https://github.com/Qbix/Platform
Contact me if you’re interested to be involved, or just have a question about how to get started. (Greg+hn, the at sign, then qbix.com)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ1O_gmPneI
It is simply a platform on top of the Web same as Wordpress, that anyone can install. It can even run on local wireless mesh networks.
Oh and it’s totally Free and Open Source and any community or startup can use it to build apps to put in the store.
https://github.com/Qbix/Platform
Contact me if you’re interested to be involved, or just have a question about how to get started. (Greg+hn, the at sign, then qbix.com)
Is it public discourse or private discourse?. If public, then you have no right to anonymity or to be forgotten. Anyone can record what you say in public, and that is reasonable and expected. Myself, I would like to have both - just as I do in the non-digital world. I don't expect that one platform can serve both purposes.
Private communication is not possible. Humans have been striving to achieve it for all of history. I guess that the rich and powerful can achieve it to a certain degree. The analog hole is the problem. Why is there not more technical discussion about plugging the analog hole?
Private communication is not possible. Humans have been striving to achieve it for all of history. I guess that the rich and powerful can achieve it to a certain degree. The analog hole is the problem. Why is there not more technical discussion about plugging the analog hole?
I sound like a broken record, but in my humble view decentralized social network is even worse than centralized one.
Key feature of any social network should be 'right to be forgotten' (e.g. delete content), and ability of network to moderate and update content (due to legal requirements, or due to users requests for their own content or for other reasons).
How do you manage that in a system such as proposed here? How do you enforce content to be removed due to court order? How do you take down a revenge this or that after your account gets hijacked and your password/keys are gone?
Key feature of any social network should be 'right to be forgotten' (e.g. delete content), and ability of network to moderate and update content (due to legal requirements, or due to users requests for their own content or for other reasons).
How do you manage that in a system such as proposed here? How do you enforce content to be removed due to court order? How do you take down a revenge this or that after your account gets hijacked and your password/keys are gone?
> Key feature of any social network should be 'right to be forgotten'
I've said this before, the only data an user should have the right to remove should have no value to someone else. I absolutely hate reddit threads filled with "[deleted]", people deleting their Mediafire accounts, picture hosts removing infrequently fetched images and so on and on. It's so hard to avoid "digital Alzheimer's" it's infuriating and we should curb it rather than encourage it. I do myself want to delete old FB Messenger conversations, but I'd be seriously pissed seeing some old chat containing only my incoherent ramblings. I think one-sided deletion isn't the solution, fine-tuned privacy settings (and thus hiding and possible recovery) is.
It's important that we don't forget to deal with this before we actually do start to notice that "f* shouldn't have deleted that".
I've said this before, the only data an user should have the right to remove should have no value to someone else. I absolutely hate reddit threads filled with "[deleted]", people deleting their Mediafire accounts, picture hosts removing infrequently fetched images and so on and on. It's so hard to avoid "digital Alzheimer's" it's infuriating and we should curb it rather than encourage it. I do myself want to delete old FB Messenger conversations, but I'd be seriously pissed seeing some old chat containing only my incoherent ramblings. I think one-sided deletion isn't the solution, fine-tuned privacy settings (and thus hiding and possible recovery) is.
It's important that we don't forget to deal with this before we actually do start to notice that "f* shouldn't have deleted that".
>I've said this before, the only data an user should have the right to remove should have no value to someone else.
>I absolutely hate reddit threads filled with "[deleted]", people deleting their Mediafire accounts, picture hosts removing infrequently fetched images and so on and on.
I disagree - the right of users to assert control over their identity and data supersedes your desire to control or use that data for your own purposes, or your desire to have the web act as an immutable historical record, which it was never designed or intended to do.
I agree that Reddit threads with deleted content are annoying, but that's an implementation detail Reddit chooses to have and could likewise choose not to have (the way Hacker News chooses to make it impossible to delete user accounts, change usernames or delete comments after a certain time.) But the premise that people should be allowed to delete content from the web at all shouldn't be up for debate.
>I think one-sided deletion isn't the solution, fine-tuned privacy settings (and thus hiding and possible recovery) is.
Both can be solutions, but I believe the former is a necessity.
I disagree - the right of users to assert control over their identity and data supersedes your desire to control or use that data for your own purposes, or your desire to have the web act as an immutable historical record, which it was never designed or intended to do.
I agree that Reddit threads with deleted content are annoying, but that's an implementation detail Reddit chooses to have and could likewise choose not to have (the way Hacker News chooses to make it impossible to delete user accounts, change usernames or delete comments after a certain time.) But the premise that people should be allowed to delete content from the web at all shouldn't be up for debate.
>I think one-sided deletion isn't the solution, fine-tuned privacy settings (and thus hiding and possible recovery) is.
Both can be solutions, but I believe the former is a necessity.
> the right of users to assert control over their identity and data supersedes your desire to control or use that data for your own purposes
The right of users to assert control over their identity is different from the control over all of the data the user put online. Your right to your data should end with my right to my data. As I said, data deletion is so often damaging it's ridiculous.
> or your desire to have the web act as an immutable historical record
Please don't twist my words, I never said that.
> But the premise that people should be allowed to delete content from the web at all shouldn't be up for debate.
I think that exactly has to be up for debate, especially with "social networks", noone is social alone thus the data shouldn't belong to that one person. I'm not saying it should be new "Facebook" that should have the control, not at all, the users should get to decide. Over time I've accumulated access to various collections of images of for example events that have happened in the past. I made those pictures, I shared them, I have control over them, do you think it's right I now go around and wipe them?
The right of users to assert control over their identity is different from the control over all of the data the user put online. Your right to your data should end with my right to my data. As I said, data deletion is so often damaging it's ridiculous.
> or your desire to have the web act as an immutable historical record
Please don't twist my words, I never said that.
> But the premise that people should be allowed to delete content from the web at all shouldn't be up for debate.
I think that exactly has to be up for debate, especially with "social networks", noone is social alone thus the data shouldn't belong to that one person. I'm not saying it should be new "Facebook" that should have the control, not at all, the users should get to decide. Over time I've accumulated access to various collections of images of for example events that have happened in the past. I made those pictures, I shared them, I have control over them, do you think it's right I now go around and wipe them?
>The right of users to assert control over their identity is different from the control over all of the data the user put online.
I don't believe it is - the data you put online is your online identity, for better or worse. Control of one is control of the other, especially when it comes to social media, which often has the mediation and sale of that identity as part of its business model.
>Please don't twist my words, I never said that.
To me, that's implied in the belief that deletion is harmful and needs to be managed. If that misrepresents your views, I apologize.
But a lot of people do seem to have the concern lately that things like the "right to be forgotten" are a threat to data archiving and the public record, and they're right, but... that doesn't matter. That's the web working as intended, it's meant to be stateless and ephemeral by design. Link rot, unfortunate as it is, is a feature, not a bug.
>Over time I've accumulated access to various collections of images of for example events that have happened in the past. I made those pictures, I shared them, I have control over them, do you think it's right I now go around and wipe them?
Yes, if you want to, I think it's entirely your right. Why should you have the right to add data to a service, but not to delete it if you choose? Particularly when those services claim an arbitrary right to do so themselves?
Mind you, I'm not saying you have the right to delete it everywhere, because that's infeasible, but you should have the right to delete what you published from whatever service you published to.
I don't believe it is - the data you put online is your online identity, for better or worse. Control of one is control of the other, especially when it comes to social media, which often has the mediation and sale of that identity as part of its business model.
>Please don't twist my words, I never said that.
To me, that's implied in the belief that deletion is harmful and needs to be managed. If that misrepresents your views, I apologize.
But a lot of people do seem to have the concern lately that things like the "right to be forgotten" are a threat to data archiving and the public record, and they're right, but... that doesn't matter. That's the web working as intended, it's meant to be stateless and ephemeral by design. Link rot, unfortunate as it is, is a feature, not a bug.
>Over time I've accumulated access to various collections of images of for example events that have happened in the past. I made those pictures, I shared them, I have control over them, do you think it's right I now go around and wipe them?
Yes, if you want to, I think it's entirely your right. Why should you have the right to add data to a service, but not to delete it if you choose? Particularly when those services claim an arbitrary right to do so themselves?
Mind you, I'm not saying you have the right to delete it everywhere, because that's infeasible, but you should have the right to delete what you published from whatever service you published to.
> Why should you have the right to add data to a service, but not to delete it if you choose? Particularly when those services claim an arbitrary right to do so themselves?
Why should I have the right to delete content that relates to other people, if I might even say important to other people? Simply because I was the first should mean that I get to say what happens to the content?
> Link rot, unfortunate as it is, is a feature, not a bug.
Really curious, how is it a feature, not a bug?
Why should I have the right to delete content that relates to other people, if I might even say important to other people? Simply because I was the first should mean that I get to say what happens to the content?
> Link rot, unfortunate as it is, is a feature, not a bug.
Really curious, how is it a feature, not a bug?
decentralized social network just means users own their own data. it doesn't mean the UI that displays the aggregate social network feed cannot moderate the contents
So you're saying it can be centralized too, as long as TOS says users keep owning their data?
But even in decentralized model, you may think you 'own' you data (as in TOS), but surely it cannot just reside on computing resources you have full control over. Now if you lose your passwords/keys, who do you contact to take your content down, grant you access to it again? What is an arbitration process to decide that you're you, not some impostor?
But even in decentralized model, you may think you 'own' you data (as in TOS), but surely it cannot just reside on computing resources you have full control over. Now if you lose your passwords/keys, who do you contact to take your content down, grant you access to it again? What is an arbitration process to decide that you're you, not some impostor?
I think the idea is that your identity is registered on the blockchain and the data physically resides in your encrypted storage, that is accessed via this identity. if you lose your keys you are ducked in the same way that you are ducked with crypto in general if you lose your keys. I am not sure exactly, but that's my understanding.
Users must own and control their data, using open standards, so that apps can come and go and people aren’t locked into them.
The biggest obstacle to this is browsers. Browsers must implement decent identity and authentication with pluggable encrypted data storage. Without that there simply can’t be a decentralized social network on the web.
Beaker browser is the only active project attempting to move in that direction, even though it might not be the right solution. They deserve the $1 million, not some idiot blockchain bikeshedders.
The biggest obstacle to this is browsers. Browsers must implement decent identity and authentication with pluggable encrypted data storage. Without that there simply can’t be a decentralized social network on the web.
Beaker browser is the only active project attempting to move in that direction, even though it might not be the right solution. They deserve the $1 million, not some idiot blockchain bikeshedders.
Decentralized search please too.
And ecommerce while we're at it.
This is on producthunt today: https://www.producthunt.com/posts/public-market
Try OpenBazaar!
This blockstack architecture is pretty interesting, but I wish it didn't have a Token attached: https://blockstack.org/whitepaper.pdf
Anyone know of a similar decentralized DNS platform and allows users to 'own' their personal data without an attached ICO?
Anyone know of a similar decentralized DNS platform and allows users to 'own' their personal data without an attached ICO?
The issue with Dat, Mastodon, SSB, Diaspora, etc. is that they do not solve the problem of who's running the servers. They give you the tools to easily sync and migrate data that can back a social network, but you still need a live machine to host the files. These systems don't specify how to find those machines and how to compensate the people running them. The result is a cobbled-together list of servers posted on project web sites as a "temporary" way for people to get started.
Cryptocurrency could potentially provide an avenue to compensate anonymous storage providers for storing encrypted data backing a social network. A well-integrated system could give users the one click to join experience you need to get wide adoption, without forcing them to think about who runs their server.
This is what Blockstack and many other projects are trying to do (I don't know about Blockstack in particular, it didn't work when I tried it a couple months ago and the founders seem to grandstand a lot).
Cryptocurrency could potentially provide an avenue to compensate anonymous storage providers for storing encrypted data backing a social network. A well-integrated system could give users the one click to join experience you need to get wide adoption, without forcing them to think about who runs their server.
This is what Blockstack and many other projects are trying to do (I don't know about Blockstack in particular, it didn't work when I tried it a couple months ago and the founders seem to grandstand a lot).
[deleted]
Not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for but I just stumbled upon the Dat project myself.
https://datproject.org/
https://datproject.org/
Thanks! A system after my own heart, it even uses a Merkle tree instead of a blockchain <3
Does this have a system that allows users to keep ownership of their personal data?
Does this have a system that allows users to keep ownership of their personal data?
Yes, the data is owned by you and signed for ownership attribution. AFAIK there is no "remove my data from the network", as it is a public network.
You should also check out Beaker Browser. It is a browser built around the dat protocol. Really great community and even has a few decentralized social networks already.
https://beakerbrowser.com/
https://beakerbrowser.com/
I almost forgot crypto projects could exist without an ICO. Shit's crazy.
Lots of anti in this thread, so I don't mean to pile it on. But... a new browser is the wrong UX to develop an ecosystem of apps.
It needs to be an API, that developers can use existing platforms (current browsers, mobile and native apps) to build their apps. Users aren't going to care enough about decentralized data to change their behavior.
It needs to be an API, that developers can use existing platforms (current browsers, mobile and native apps) to build their apps. Users aren't going to care enough about decentralized data to change their behavior.
It's unclear if they're giving the money without taking equity, or if they're expecting to get a cut.
Decentralised social networks are a bad idea. Communication tools need to be inclusive and open to everyone, especially laypeople. Decentralised tools and blockchain turn off non-techies, and are overkill for the social networking problem.
People use decentralized things all the time without a problem. Email, for example. They can use a shim like Gmail, decide one day they hate it, switch to something else, and still email everyone in roughly the same way without convincing all those people to migrate somewhere simultaneously.
Is this sarcasm? I honestly can't tell.
That's an implementation problem mainly caused by decentralized social networks being designed mainly by techies for techies, and touted in technical circles.
Can anyone show me a use case for the end user with a clearly defined benefit?
how would this work? if users own their own data, do you have to query them for data every time? would this be horribly inefficient ? I mean this as a technical question about how blockstack works. if you start caching or storing users data, then there is nothing stopping you from mischief with it, right?
Seems that 1 million to 1 group or even 333k to 3 groups would be more effective than 100k to 10 groups.
Like $100k is enough to build social network, lol. You can't even hire 3 developers for that money.
It's interesting to personally experience the rise of politically motivated technology like this.
Best joke on hn today. Keep dreaming, dreamer.
There is a documentary on HBO about this effort called "Silicon Valley". It is in the 5th season.
The basic challenge is that smart people keep making really poor choices which are very funny but also counter productive.
The basic challenge is that smart people keep making really poor choices which are very funny but also counter productive.
LOL
Holy shit, why? This "decentralized social network" concept has been around literally since the beginning of Facebook. Apparently, people are failing to grasp that centralization isn't the problem and will never be a selling point to 2 billion people.
The problem is making something as engaging and entertaining and interesting as Facebook. Good luck.
The problem is making something as engaging and entertaining and interesting as Facebook. Good luck.
If anyone is looking to learn how to build a DApp on a smart contract platform, check out Nebulas.
It uses Javascript or Typescript as its language.
You can learn to how to build a simple DApp in a day and get paid to do so (100 NAS for just submitting one or win up to 20,000 NAS for winning DApp of the month).
Check it out here: https://incentive.nebulas.io/signup.html?invite=xDhnG
It uses Javascript or Typescript as its language.
You can learn to how to build a simple DApp in a day and get paid to do so (100 NAS for just submitting one or win up to 20,000 NAS for winning DApp of the month).
Check it out here: https://incentive.nebulas.io/signup.html?invite=xDhnG
Isn't the point of a blockchain to keep a ledger of the changes? So how can you delete anything without rebuilding the entire chain? Being decentralized in this case just means that now everyone has my data. Sure, it is encrypted, but are we just going to say what is secure today will be secure tomorrow?
My understanding of blockchain is that it is meant to be tamper proof. Which is nice for things like tracking votes or ensuring the integrity of things, but with my personal data I WANT to have the power to tamper with it. These two ideas seem to be at odds.
If I'm misunderstanding, maybe somebody can educate me.