brainstorm: decentralised wikis, Ethereum, blockchain

[Alex Hough]

Hello all,

I had an interesting conversation about wikis, federation and ethereum.

It reminded me of Beaker browser and TW.

What if there was a Ethereum TiddlyWiki, each tiddler is on the blockchain. There are smart contracts in tiddlers, like macros. There is a language -- like WikiText -- which would enable the user to compose contracts and transfer ?

I just wondered if anyone has any thoughts 

Alex

[Jed Carty]

I am not sure what the purpose would be. A shared ledger could be useful but I can't really see much benefit other than using tiddlywiki to make a front-end to view the status of things that use Ethereum.

As a specifically tiddlywiki thing I don't see the benefit from ethereum. I have a rather dim view of most applications of blockchains since they have been used to co-opt the ideas of federated and distributed systems and force them into a centralised setting.

[Alex Hough]

Hi Jed,

Could you elaborate on the idea that blockchains being centralised and co-opting federation. Aren't they supposed to be decentralised?

Maybe I am using TiddlyWiki and Ethereum as a "intermediate object" here -- to help a mind-trip into uncharted (for me) territories. 

best wishes

Alex

On 17 October 2017 at 12:02, Jed Carty <inmy...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am not sure what the purpose would be. A shared ledger could be useful but I can't really see much benefit other than using tiddlywiki to make a front-end to view the status of things that use Ethereum.

As a specifically tiddlywiki thing I don't see the benefit from ethereum. I have a rather dim view of most applications of blockchains since they have been used to co-opt the ideas of federated and distributed systems and force them into a centralised setting.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/ee382912-fa82-4ed2-96ae-929e9c3e7e36%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jed Carty]

The purpose of a blockchain is a shared ledger that everyone has access to and everyone can see. It is a centralised database, it is copied onto many machines but the point of the database is that it is the same across all machines, which is actually the point of the blockchain, it is impossible to do something and then lie about it and everyone can verify what was done and who did it. It is not centralised in a way that allows anyone to control access, but it is centralised in the way that any blockchain is by necessity a monolithic entity.

It isn't a bad idea, but a lot of the talk about how blockchain is going to save the world is based on how it allows analysis of all the activity on the blockchain and how much venture capital this attracts. All the implementations I have seen are also using pay-to-play models which in my opinion is a huge departure from the ideas of interoperable federated systems where the idea is that you make it easy for things to work together.

To top that all off, almost none of the claims about privacy and anonymity have been verified, and in fact many are being shown to be incorrect, either because the technology doesn't provide it or because there is so much side-channel information available. There are many companies whose business is just matching bitcoin wallets to people.

I have a lot of problems with how people want to use blockchains so I will stop myself from ranting too much here, but it comes down to the idea being great for venture capital and bad for everyone else.

[PMario]

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 11:37:08 AM UTC+2, AlexHough wrote:

I had an interesting conversation about wikis, federation and ethereum.

It reminded me of Beaker browser and TW.

Hi Alex,

There's an article from Paul Frazee, one of the authors of the Beaker browser: "Cryptographically-secure change feeds in the Dat protocol, and on the Web".

He describes the "data store" that the Beaker browser can access natively. It's called the DAT-protocol. We (TiddlyWiki community) can use this API to save tiddlywiki.html files and also single tiddlers.

Near the end of the article there is a small section about the pro and cons of block-chains, and why the DAT-project doesn't use one.

have fun!

mario

[HansWobbe]

Hello all.

Its nice to see interest in blockchain technologies by folks that I have watched in this community for quite a long time since I feel can appreciate and trust their level of knowledge and their motives much more than the "hype" that pervades so much of the web.

@Jed Please don't stop ranting too much.  Some of the negative factors you see are much more realistice assessments than the assertions of venture capatalists that have come to my attention.  One fundamental aspect that catches my attention is the assumption that blockchains need to be "monolithic".  Lately I've seen some interesting speculation about  the possible value of "micro-monoliths" that rely on the DLT to vastly replicate common components, that are themselves just a part of a greater context that could be assembled, given a chained collection of  the indivdual, replicated components.  Theoretically, this reduces the size and rate of groth of a blockchain by breaking it up into smaler, related segments. This is probably not theoretically secure, but it certainly adds enough complexity to, in practice, make a target secure by taking it of the "path of least resistance" that professional criminals attack in order to be efficient.

@mario Thanks for the references.

[Mark S.]

Don't blockchains keep growing? Doesn't seem like a good fit for TiddlyWiki where there is an effective upper limit.

I'll be more interested in Beaker when they have a version for the #1 desktop operating system in the world.

Mark

[HansWobbe]

Blockchains do indeed keep growing (as do most of my tiddly wikis).   However, as they grow, logical clusters emerge that can be viewed as the seeds for yet another Blockchain.  The new blockchains can refer back to the original one, creating a kind of next generation that has new information that can refer back to the prior generation or simply augment the prior information.

In practice, there will be performance issues at any time that limit the effective size, but that also applies to a tidlywiki file (and any other file structure).

The concept that seems to emerge also has aspects of (read only) federation for those tiddlers that are important enough to warrant being  widely distributed.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Hans & all

I don't have a grasp of the underlying tech but I have some practical experience with Bitcoin.

Overall, my practical impression is rather like Jed's. That the blockchain is mostly being appropriated and aligned with financially oriented outcomes. Whilst the original model/idea was very much against anyone controlling it, in practice "access points" are controlled and controlled for profit. Its become a bit like banking in general: there are universal rules, BUT access to the system is largely mediated by third parties taking a cut. And, of course, nation states increasing get interested in it because of fiscal avoidance and usage for illicit purposes.

HansWobbe wrote:

... The concept that seems to emerge also has aspects of (read only) federation for those tiddlers that are important enough to warrant being  widely distributed.

I think in a way that reverts back to the issue that blockchains do NOT deal with at all: any choice system for "important enough". I think that is outwith that.

Best wishes
Josiah

[HansWobbe]

Ciao Josiah & all

I certainly agree that most of the "hype" around blockchain is taking place in contexts specifically related to crypto-currencies like Bitcoin.  And I think your observations about the incumbent suppliers protecting their turf are also expectedly accurate.

That being said, Distributed Ledger Technologies are also seen as having significant benefits is Contract documentation and management, as well as in many other legal contexts that have a burden of proof. In fact, based on my work with global Banks and western Governments, the Identity confirmation requirements now being imposed by financial intermediaries and electoral authorities are amazingly similar.  This brings me to the set of use cases that I find particularly attractive ...

I want to use various blockchain structures to store "certified" copies of the information that  unquestionably establishes my Identity.  I realize that this is the antithesis of Privacy, but for anyone woh has every had to satisfy the absurdly illogical demands for documentation of a government  department or a bank, it is very appleaing.  After all "It could happen to you."!

In pondering some designs that stem from this, it becomes apparent that ...
* there is a need for encryption based on Public and Private keys so that individual segments of a blockchain can be secured adequately.
* a holistic blockchain that contains a record of each and every transaction in a person's life-time, is inevitable and so needs to be designed by proactive white-hats.
* high performance sub-sets of the master will be need for specifc use.
* ...

Now, I really should pause since I am not at all certain that this line of though is of interest to anyone and I don't want to "rant"

Additional comments, suggestions, questions may well stimulate and focus further thoughts.

Best wishes,
Hans

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Hans

A couple of comments maybe others won't be gripped by ...

HansWobbe wrote:

... Identity confirmation requirements now being imposed by financial intermediaries and electoral authorities are amazingly similar.  This brings me to the set of use cases that I find particularly attractive ...

I want to use various blockchain structures to store "certified" copies of the information that  unquestionably establishes my Identity.  I realize that this is the antithesis of Privacy ...

 I don't think its the antithesis of privacy. The issue, like the "net privacy" debate in general is as much about whether basic "identification in public" constitutes breach of privacy. I don't think so. Its looking increasingly like REAL IDENTIFICATION matters. In that sense its not so much about concealment as VERIFICATION. Verified identity in public I can't fault. Its a good step given the world we are in.

Whether you should know of the putative 14 prostitutes I employed last year and how much I may or may not have paid them, is something else, the public have no right to know.

Best wishes
Josiah

[HansWobbe]

Ciao Josiiah:

I find myself in agreement with your extension regarding the "antithesis of Privacy" and most certainly the distinction that there are "need to know" as well as "right to know" circumstances.

I also quite like your extension into "Verified identity in public".  After all, borrows in western societies generally recogfnize that the approval of a loan application is contingent upon a review of the Credit history of the applicant, if only to reduce the Risk (and cost) of the loan.  For this reason, the borrower generally grants the lender the right to review a Credit Bureau report which is actually a precursor of a a blockchain of Borrowers debt and re-payment history.  ( Before questioning the validity of that statement, take a look at the mass of data available on the internet of the efforts of people to correct mistakes in their Credit Bureau reports that haount them literally for decades.  It is almost impossible to fix that instance of a "blockchain" type of technology. )  Clearly a good loan repayment history reduces the Risk of the loan and hence should reduce the cos of the loan.
It is in the context of a loan application transaction that the Application grants the right of review to the lender.  In a different context, the 1600+ data fields contained in a North American credit report should be private instead of being widely offered for sale.  Furthermnore, Banks (who wish to be recognized as Trusted Intermediaries) should be much more closely restricted in their right to sell theprivate transaction data of their customers to Credit Bureaux.
 
Hopefully I have not digressed too deeply into tangential matters with the preceding text regarding Credit Bureaux, but I have found it to be an example of some of the Pricacy concerns that lay people can (and need to) understand.

Regards,
Hans