On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Matthew Toseland <mj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 17/11/14 21:38, Michael Grube wrote: > > I hate to put it this way, but let's be coldly rational here. Please do > not > > take this as an offensive question: What can we offer that maidsafe > cannot? > > Since it will be based on 'safecoins' I'm assuming it will cost money to > > use which is one advantage we have. Anything beside that though? > Precisely for that reason it can cash in on venture capital and the > whole Bitcoin hype engine? > > Beyond that, I don't know, don't have time to dig. Arne's site does > mention it though. > > Blockchains are a crappy thing to put an entire set of technologies on > top > > of, especially since Ghash.io was capable of executing the 51% attack > > earlier this year. > > > > Should we focus on small world vs blockchain? Is this even an issue? > > Curious to know what everyone thinks. > Block chains have some advantages for spam-resistant naming and other > stuff Freenet sucks at. I.e. Freenet needs scarcity for announcement, > All that means is there is an arbitrary associated cost based on the hashrate for communication. This actually places power in the wealthiest parties on the network which is not exactly conducive to free speech, but that is a topic for a different time. > safe KSKs, forums, search. Bitcoin/namecoin is one way to do that. > > However you also need a distributed storage mechanism, which doesn't > have much to do with block chains. > I think maidsafe addresses the storage issue. > > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl@freenetproject.org > https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
