Yes - I am looking for "practical solutions".
And I think .onion paved the way.
And I think .onion paved the way.
Yet ppl were trying to generate "vanity" ids...
Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 40. (Read 2761629 times)
Yet ppl were trying to generate "vanity" ids...
So u r against unique people-readable names but not against machine-readable ones. Got it, now ur idea looks less utopian.
Yes - I am looking for "practical solutions" that support "decentralisation" rather than ideas that support "name squatting and scamming".
And I think .onion paved the way.
Routing is not broken if you have unique identities (i.e. names that don't look like names).
TOR does exactly this for .onion services (those look a bit like Bitcoin addresses).
Are you claiming that TOR .onion services "don't work"?
TOR does exactly this for .onion services (those look a bit like Bitcoin addresses).
Are you claiming that TOR .onion services "don't work"?
So u r against unique people-readable names but not against machine-readable ones. Got it, now ur idea looks less utopian.
Aren't those .onion and BTC addresses also unique? Maybe not pretty, but unique nonetheless?
Yes - the issue I have with Aliases is they are not like Bitcoin addresses - if they were then I'd have no problem at all with them.
If we changed all Aliases to be say SHA256 hashes then I would have zero complaint.
They don't explicitly state that non-unique aliases (aka names) won't work but I have a feeling that at any given time u must have unique aliases or routing will be broken. How uniqueness of aliases is achieved - another question.
Routing is not broken if you have unique identities (i.e. names that don't look like names).
TOR does exactly this for .onion services (those look a bit like Bitcoin addresses).
Are you claiming that TOR .onion services "don't work"?
Aren't those .onion and BTC addresses also unique? Maybe not pretty, but unique nonetheless?
Again - it was written in 2004 and TOR has already proven itself for years.
If we "needed unique aliases" in order to "do things on the internet" then "why do we have Bitcoin?" (surely it can't work as it doesn't have "unique aliases" but instead "unreadable addresses").
If we "needed unique aliases" in order to "do things on the internet" then "why do we have Bitcoin?" (surely it can't work as it doesn't have "unique aliases" but instead "unreadable addresses").
They don't explicitly state that non-unique aliases (aka names) won't work but I have a feeling that at any given time u must have unique aliases or routing will be broken. How uniqueness of aliases is achieved - another question.
Routing is not broken if you have unique identities (i.e. names that don't look like names).
TOR does exactly this for .onion services (those look a bit like Bitcoin addresses).
Are you claiming that TOR .onion services "don't work"?
Can't see the relevance to unique aliases in that dissertation - like to quote some particular parts of it?
(also it was authored in 2004 so years before Bitcoin even existed)
(also it was authored in 2004 so years before Bitcoin even existed)
They don't explicitly state that non-unique aliases (aka names) won't work but I have a feeling that at any given time u must have unique aliases or routing will be broken. How uniqueness of aliases is achieved - another question.
Internet 2.0 is "decentralised" with no DNS system (the reason I don't like unique aliases) and no centralised CA cert system as well as no centralised big servers running such services.
FYI - http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~ravenben/publications/dissertation/dissertation.pdf
Can't see the relevance to unique aliases in that dissertation - like to quote some particular parts of it?
(also it was authored in 2004 so years before Bitcoin even existed)
internet2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet2
Quote
internet2 operates the Internet2 Network,[8] an Internet Protocol network using optical fiber that delivers network services for research and education, and provides a secure network testing and research environment. In late 2007, Internet2 began operating its newest dynamic circuit network, the Internet2 DCN, an advanced technology that allows user-based allocation of data circuits over the fiber-optic network.
Internet 2.0 is "decentralised" with no DNS system (the reason I don't like unique aliases) and no centralised CA cert system as well as no centralised big servers running such services.
FYI - http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~ravenben/publications/dissertation/dissertation.pdf
internet2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet2
Quote
internet2 operates the Internet2 Network,[8] an Internet Protocol network using optical fiber that delivers network services for research and education, and provides a secure network testing and research environment. In late 2007, Internet2 began operating its newest dynamic circuit network, the Internet2 DCN, an advanced technology that allows user-based allocation of data circuits over the fiber-optic network.
Internet 2.0
Nxt Decentralized P2P Internet Network.
is the idea that I would like "nxt" to become
Nxt Decentralized P2P Internet Network.
is the idea that I would like "nxt" to become
Nxternet?
InterNXT
Internet 2.0
Nxt Decentralized P2P Internet Network.
is the idea that I would like "nxt" to become
Nxt Decentralized P2P Internet Network.
is the idea that I would like "nxt" to become
Nxternet?
Internet 2.0
Nxt Decentralized P2P Internet Network.
is the idea that I would like "nxt" to become
Nxt Decentralized P2P Internet Network.
is the idea that I would like "nxt" to become
The internet 2.0 sounds impractical for big bandwith usage, or am i wrong?
I think if you look at projects like MaidSafe or Bitcloud (the latter would be my preferred approach) you can see that this is actually *very practical* when done the right way.
I have read some coverage about bitcloud/MaidSafe, and my concern is the scalability if it becomes mainstream. But then again Devs are very creative and will come up with a solution.
*the future is exiting!!!*
The internet 2.0 sounds impractical for big bandwith usage, or am i wrong?
I think if you look at projects like MaidSafe or Bitcloud (the latter would be my preferred approach) you can see that this is actually *very practical* when done the right way.
nice to hear this, CIYAM, you are invited to the project: https://nxtforum.org/nxt-promotion/nxt-solutions-of-decentralized-internet-show-nxt-faces/
Quote
You surely know the alfa version of the video: http://youtu.be/RtTWUwRL9mQ
Now when we have a long version, it would be wise to create only a short version (4-6 minutes), so who would like, he could see the alfa then.
The goal is - to replace those guys by our faces. So I am looking for volunteers who could speak like those people in the video - about Nxt or about ideas behind decentralized Nxt (see http://justpaste.it/nxt-decentralized-internet). You just need few minutes of time, nice place and a nice camera. It is a nice coincidence that Ethereum also published similar video, but after I published alfa : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMBtKMZYdN8
Now when we have a long version, it would be wise to create only a short version (4-6 minutes), so who would like, he could see the alfa then.
The goal is - to replace those guys by our faces. So I am looking for volunteers who could speak like those people in the video - about Nxt or about ideas behind decentralized Nxt (see http://justpaste.it/nxt-decentralized-internet). You just need few minutes of time, nice place and a nice camera. It is a nice coincidence that Ethereum also published similar video, but after I published alfa
: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMBtKMZYdN8And anyone else. Watch the video, be inspired, record yourself with your ideas, send me a youtube link
The internet 2.0 sounds impractical for big bandwith usage, or am i wrong?
I think if you look at projects like MaidSafe or Bitcloud (the latter would be my preferred approach) you can see that this is actually *very practical* when done the right way.
Although I do wish "NXT starter" all the best understand that the AT system will allow you to create a crowdfunding AT that requires *zero trust* and *zero commission* (will simply be run by fees).
The plan I have in mind is to make this as simple as a "form that you will fill out" in order to create this AT (so no need to even understand programming at all).
It isn't easy to understand Internet 2.0 as we have all become so used to Internet 1.0 but hopefully people will see that "centralised websites" are going to have to become "a thing of the past".
The plan I have in mind is to make this as simple as a "form that you will fill out" in order to create this AT (so no need to even understand programming at all).
It isn't easy to understand Internet 2.0 as we have all become so used to Internet 1.0 but hopefully people will see that "centralised websites" are going to have to become "a thing of the past".
No probleme with that, i even hope this is our future, i'm ok to become one thing of the past after some month if decentralized web become real.
But for now, NXTstarter can be a nice windows for everyone, where we can see what is going on.
While i think this project is nice, I am a bit skeptic, that your numbers will match reality. Within 2 years 2% of all NXT will have to go through your platform. While possible, i doubt it. Care to convince me?
In the realworld, crowfunding websites are also not very successful.
In the realworld, crowfunding websites are also not very successful.
It is very ambitious plan, but remember all crypto are allowed on this webiste.
If you successfully establish a good image as a kickstarter platform, then I can see you succeding! Because BTC is already a big market.
Nice!
What r the main differences between Internet 1.0 and 2.0?
Internet 1.0 is "centralised" with a DNS system and the CA cert system and the use of "big servers" to provide "centrally controlled" applications such as say Banking, Google or Facebook.
Internet 2.0 is "decentralised" with no DNS system (the reason I don't like unique aliases) and no centralised CA cert system as well as no centralised big servers running such services.
The internet 2.0 sounds impractical for big bandwith usage, or am i wrong?
Maybe use 1.0 for all the dataintensive stuff and 2.0 for the sensitive stuff?
Jump to: