decentralised promises are innate with the internet since early inceptions - eg bush, and arguably prior -
as we know, the promises turned to dust and, tbh imho there's a BIG diff between fed nets and blockchains.
the latter have commodification built in, and so long as it is the case, the claim for decent on blockchains is like saying any currency is distributed - while forgetting the gardeners that keep the park well Locked IMHO.
@ahanon @purplepeopleeater The way I see it, blockchains are a tool for distributed networks(validated tamper-proof distributed storage) and incentive-driven decentralized applications.
I don't see comodification as inherent to blockchain systems, it's a way to address the incentive problem. Not all applications require an incentive to function, but some do, or at least to scale.
Well.. I wonder how "incentive driven" operates in #blockchain oriented networks, since it seems of a narrow and a particular kind -
that of turning all into numerical value-able actors with prices that negate qualities.
Consider this exchange between us -
hopefully, we are both incentivised precisely by that which escapes valuation.
if one of us Knew
or suspected that
the other get some kind of, say, money -
will we have a similar exchange dynamic quality?
Consider filecoin & IPFS. You can choose to participate in the IPFS network, and replicate & serve data for free.
But if you want to make sure important data is sufficiently replicated at all times, you need to provide an incentive. With filecoin, hosting and serving data on IPFS is rewarded.
It's a basic economic problem. Providing internet services has a cost. That cost has to be absorbed. By rewarding service providers proportionally to their service, not only is the cost absorbed but people can be incentivized to provide a better service and make a livelihood out of their service (if it is valued enough).
How do you think it should work?
hummm... we have to leave the economy aside here imho
i think its a technology question that #blockchain fails in it's promise.
there's no way to come both distributive and monetised - something will have to give. Since we are talking about political entities that do business for the company's profit rather than the social -
its hard to see past another batch of technologies failing their humans.
kind of sad, no?
Nothing is perfect, I don't really believe in utopia. I agree that monetization can become problematic in that power corrupts, and money becomes power. I don't see how that's avoidable, though. It's human nature to seek more for oneself. What these systems try to do is to align human nature with larger goals through these incentive mechanisms.
I think we've yet to see those projects succeed or fail. Failure is part of progress too.
I don't believe all blockchains project are about making money for a company. Individuals want to make money through those projects, sure, that's natural. But the projects have goals beyond money-making, and that's what should drive their value and their network. For example, I respect the IPFS project, and filecoin is there to support it, so I'm willing to give it the benefice of doubt.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!