Re: [tw5] Is blockchain still not for TW?

[TW Tones]

If I may remind all, block chain is simply an algorithm, it can be used in 
many ways including in ways counter to its well known applications, such as 
cryptocurrencies. A  Distributed Ledger can serve many functions and you 
can have open transactions that a fully traceable, in fact that is a 
potential strength,  as usual its all about agreements in the way we 
operate, the rules and conventions and scope. For example I could maintain 
my own blockchain for my own ledger to achieve one thing, or I could share 
a block chain with partners and trusted collaborators just for us. Block 
chains Distributed ledger is part of its appeal for crypto currency, but 
this has moral and ethical issues as is seen by the use of crypto 
currencies for money laundering etc...

It is we who chose what to do with any algorithm.

I for one believe the tiddler concept lends itself to placement on a 
blockchain, And from there thousands of innovative solutions could develop. 
In some ways this is the same as adding tiddler to a database, but has 
other results as well.

Tones


On Tuesday, 11 May 2021 at 06:15:01 UTC+10 Jon wrote:

> Just in case this is of interest - seems to be quite cutting edge 
> https://qortal.org/
>
> On Monday, 10 May 2021 at 21:08:25 UTC+1 hww...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the reply.  It will ceratinly help me to think of these as 
>> distinct technologies, at  least until I get a bit more "han(d)s-on" 
>> experience :-)
>>
>>
>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 12:35:24 PM UTC-4 inmy...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> A distributed ledger and a blockchain are distinct technologies. You can 
>>> use a blockchain to build a verifiable distributed ledger (verifiable in 
>>> the sense of being able to detect tampering after data has been entered, 
>>> there aren't any checks on the validity of the source data), but it is far 
>>> from the only way to do so. Distributed hash tables have been very 
>>> successful as distributed data stores that are far more scalable than 
>>> bitcoin in the long term, in a large part because it doesn't have the 
>>> continuously growing record of all previous actions, and it doesn't have 
>>> the huge security and privacy issues that a blockchain has.
>>>
>>> So distributed ledgers are very interesting, but while blockchains can 
>>> be used as distributed ledgers they are not the same thing.
>>>
>>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 4:09:25 PM UTC+2 hww...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 I remain interested in Distributed Ledger Technology much more than I 
 am interested in BitCoin and its other financial derivatives, that even 
 Central Banks are considering as Cash replacements.  ( And I am not at all 
 interested in NFTs since the Name says it all ... "Non Fungible" ... )

 One thing I really appreciate about this communitiy is the 
 technological creativity that emerges here.  In part, I think it results 
 from the fact that community membership is quite diverse, bring a lot of 
 different experience and insight to bear.

 As more and more DLT systems emerge, it becomes appealing to me to be 
 able to use partial segments from multiple systems as an effective 
 combination lock.  For example, a combination of:

- The first 4 digits of the latitue and longiture of (as reported 
by my cell phone) 
- The last 4 digits of an active Credit Card (verifiable against 
Credit Bureau data, together with full Address)
- A reference to a recognized Social Media site (preferably with a 
Pictire and peer reviewed) e.g. linkedIn or Flickr
- The last 4 digits of my Passport number
- ...

 Depending need, I can select various combinations that even include a 
 startTime and validity Duraction.
  
 With a bit of proper encoding into a Unicode hash, it becomes possible 
 to even make such a key remarkably short since there are about 2.2 million 
 useful Unicode points have been defined, ensuring that (2e6)e4 gives more 
 than enough room!

 The appeal is that I can create distinct Tokens that meet my Security 
 and Privacy needs, but that others can verify from reliable sources of 
 public Definitive Data.

 Comments will be appreciated.

 Cheers,
 Hans

 On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 5:14:52 AM UTC-4 inmy...@gmail.com wrote:

> or perhaps I am being too hard on the idea. Instead if you all want I 
> can add blockchain to tiddlywiki and sell NFTs pointing to wikis that I 
> made, like the original twederation wiki or the interaction fiction wiki.
>
> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 10:54:03 AM UTC+2 Jed Carty wrote:
>
>> Yes, the central question is could blockchain be useful to 
>> tiddlywiki. And so far the only answer has been to use it as a proof of 
>> existence by storing what is in one blockchain (file hashes in git) in a 
>> different from in another block chain.
>>

Re: [tw5] Is blockchain still not for TW?

[Jon]

Just in case this is of interest - seems to be quite cutting edge 
https://qortal.org/

On Monday, 10 May 2021 at 21:08:25 UTC+1 hww...@gmail.com wrote:

> Thanks for the reply.  It will ceratinly help me to think of these as 
> distinct technologies, at  least until I get a bit more "han(d)s-on" 
> experience :-)
>
>
> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 12:35:24 PM UTC-4 inmy...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> A distributed ledger and a blockchain are distinct technologies. You can 
>> use a blockchain to build a verifiable distributed ledger (verifiable in 
>> the sense of being able to detect tampering after data has been entered, 
>> there aren't any checks on the validity of the source data), but it is far 
>> from the only way to do so. Distributed hash tables have been very 
>> successful as distributed data stores that are far more scalable than 
>> bitcoin in the long term, in a large part because it doesn't have the 
>> continuously growing record of all previous actions, and it doesn't have 
>> the huge security and privacy issues that a blockchain has.
>>
>> So distributed ledgers are very interesting, but while blockchains can be 
>> used as distributed ledgers they are not the same thing.
>>
>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 4:09:25 PM UTC+2 hww...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> I remain interested in Distributed Ledger Technology much more than I am 
>>> interested in BitCoin and its other financial derivatives, that even 
>>> Central Banks are considering as Cash replacements.  ( And I am not at all 
>>> interested in NFTs since the Name says it all ... "Non Fungible" ... )
>>>
>>> One thing I really appreciate about this communitiy is the technological 
>>> creativity that emerges here.  In part, I think it results from the fact 
>>> that community membership is quite diverse, bring a lot of different 
>>> experience and insight to bear.
>>>
>>> As more and more DLT systems emerge, it becomes appealing to me to be 
>>> able to use partial segments from multiple systems as an effective 
>>> combination lock.  For example, a combination of:
>>>
>>>- The first 4 digits of the latitue and longiture of (as reported by 
>>>my cell phone) 
>>>- The last 4 digits of an active Credit Card (verifiable against 
>>>Credit Bureau data, together with full Address)
>>>- A reference to a recognized Social Media site (preferably with a 
>>>Pictire and peer reviewed) e.g. linkedIn or Flickr
>>>- The last 4 digits of my Passport number
>>>- ...
>>>
>>> Depending need, I can select various combinations that even include a 
>>> startTime and validity Duraction.
>>>  
>>> With a bit of proper encoding into a Unicode hash, it becomes possible 
>>> to even make such a key remarkably short since there are about 2.2 million 
>>> useful Unicode points have been defined, ensuring that (2e6)e4 gives more 
>>> than enough room!
>>>
>>> The appeal is that I can create distinct Tokens that meet my Security 
>>> and Privacy needs, but that others can verify from reliable sources of 
>>> public Definitive Data.
>>>
>>> Comments will be appreciated.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hans
>>>
>>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 5:14:52 AM UTC-4 inmy...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 or perhaps I am being too hard on the idea. Instead if you all want I 
 can add blockchain to tiddlywiki and sell NFTs pointing to wikis that I 
 made, like the original twederation wiki or the interaction fiction wiki.

 On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 10:54:03 AM UTC+2 Jed Carty wrote:

> Yes, the central question is could blockchain be useful to tiddlywiki. 
> And so far the only answer has been to use it as a proof of existence by 
> storing what is in one blockchain (file hashes in git) in a different 
> from 
> in another block chain.
>
> Also, traceability in a blockchain is guaranteed only for events that 
> happen on the blockchain, not for what the blockchain is supposed to 
> represent. It is always open to any sort of manipulation at the human 
> interface side. I could start a car tracing block chain, and I could add 
> 1 cars to it saying that I own them. That has no bearing on the real 
> world without some mediating central authority, and with a mediating 
> central authority the blockchain is redundant.
>
> People keep saying 'I am not familiar with the technology' and then 
> arguing against someone who has studied the theory and technology that 
> goes 
> into blockchains in academic, hobby and professional capacities. The 
> blind 
> faith in the unchangeable nature of a blockchain is a huge security risk 
> to 
> anything that uses it. It is worth repeating over and over: all the 
> guarantees are just for the numbers stored on the computer, there are 
> absolutely no guarantees about what those numbers represent. All the 
> traceability claims completely fail when it gets to the data entry into 
> the 
> blockchain.

Re: [tw5] Is blockchain still not for TW?

[Hans Wobbe]

Thanks for the reply.  It will ceratinly help me to think of these as 
distinct technologies, at  least until I get a bit more "han(d)s-on" 
experience :-)


On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 12:35:24 PM UTC-4 inmy...@gmail.com wrote:

> A distributed ledger and a blockchain are distinct technologies. You can 
> use a blockchain to build a verifiable distributed ledger (verifiable in 
> the sense of being able to detect tampering after data has been entered, 
> there aren't any checks on the validity of the source data), but it is far 
> from the only way to do so. Distributed hash tables have been very 
> successful as distributed data stores that are far more scalable than 
> bitcoin in the long term, in a large part because it doesn't have the 
> continuously growing record of all previous actions, and it doesn't have 
> the huge security and privacy issues that a blockchain has.
>
> So distributed ledgers are very interesting, but while blockchains can be 
> used as distributed ledgers they are not the same thing.
>
> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 4:09:25 PM UTC+2 hww...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I remain interested in Distributed Ledger Technology much more than I am 
>> interested in BitCoin and its other financial derivatives, that even 
>> Central Banks are considering as Cash replacements.  ( And I am not at all 
>> interested in NFTs since the Name says it all ... "Non Fungible" ... )
>>
>> One thing I really appreciate about this communitiy is the technological 
>> creativity that emerges here.  In part, I think it results from the fact 
>> that community membership is quite diverse, bring a lot of different 
>> experience and insight to bear.
>>
>> As more and more DLT systems emerge, it becomes appealing to me to be 
>> able to use partial segments from multiple systems as an effective 
>> combination lock.  For example, a combination of:
>>
>>- The first 4 digits of the latitue and longiture of (as reported by 
>>my cell phone) 
>>- The last 4 digits of an active Credit Card (verifiable against 
>>Credit Bureau data, together with full Address)
>>- A reference to a recognized Social Media site (preferably with a 
>>Pictire and peer reviewed) e.g. linkedIn or Flickr
>>- The last 4 digits of my Passport number
>>- ...
>>
>> Depending need, I can select various combinations that even include a 
>> startTime and validity Duraction.
>>  
>> With a bit of proper encoding into a Unicode hash, it becomes possible to 
>> even make such a key remarkably short since there are about 2.2 million 
>> useful Unicode points have been defined, ensuring that (2e6)e4 gives more 
>> than enough room!
>>
>> The appeal is that I can create distinct Tokens that meet my Security and 
>> Privacy needs, but that others can verify from reliable sources of public 
>> Definitive Data.
>>
>> Comments will be appreciated.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hans
>>
>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 5:14:52 AM UTC-4 inmy...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> or perhaps I am being too hard on the idea. Instead if you all want I 
>>> can add blockchain to tiddlywiki and sell NFTs pointing to wikis that I 
>>> made, like the original twederation wiki or the interaction fiction wiki.
>>>
>>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 10:54:03 AM UTC+2 Jed Carty wrote:
>>>
 Yes, the central question is could blockchain be useful to tiddlywiki. 
 And so far the only answer has been to use it as a proof of existence by 
 storing what is in one blockchain (file hashes in git) in a different from 
 in another block chain.

 Also, traceability in a blockchain is guaranteed only for events that 
 happen on the blockchain, not for what the blockchain is supposed to 
 represent. It is always open to any sort of manipulation at the human 
 interface side. I could start a car tracing block chain, and I could add 
 1 cars to it saying that I own them. That has no bearing on the real 
 world without some mediating central authority, and with a mediating 
 central authority the blockchain is redundant.

 People keep saying 'I am not familiar with the technology' and then 
 arguing against someone who has studied the theory and technology that 
 goes 
 into blockchains in academic, hobby and professional capacities. The blind 
 faith in the unchangeable nature of a blockchain is a huge security risk 
 to 
 anything that uses it. It is worth repeating over and over: all the 
 guarantees are just for the numbers stored on the computer, there are 
 absolutely no guarantees about what those numbers represent. All the 
 traceability claims completely fail when it gets to the data entry into 
 the 
 blockchain.

 After working with some startups I am very familiar with how easy it is 
 to separate people from large sums of money by making magical claims that 
 aren't backed up by reality, investment in a technology and the actual 
 utility of the technology 

Re: [tw5] Is blockchain still not for TW?

[Jed Carty]

A distributed ledger and a blockchain are distinct technologies. You can 
use a blockchain to build a verifiable distributed ledger (verifiable in 
the sense of being able to detect tampering after data has been entered, 
there aren't any checks on the validity of the source data), but it is far 
from the only way to do so. Distributed hash tables have been very 
successful as distributed data stores that are far more scalable than 
bitcoin in the long term, in a large part because it doesn't have the 
continuously growing record of all previous actions, and it doesn't have 
the huge security and privacy issues that a blockchain has.

So distributed ledgers are very interesting, but while blockchains can be 
used as distributed ledgers they are not the same thing.

On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 4:09:25 PM UTC+2 hww...@gmail.com wrote:

> I remain interested in Distributed Ledger Technology much more than I am 
> interested in BitCoin and its other financial derivatives, that even 
> Central Banks are considering as Cash replacements.  ( And I am not at all 
> interested in NFTs since the Name says it all ... "Non Fungible" ... )
>
> One thing I really appreciate about this communitiy is the technological 
> creativity that emerges here.  In part, I think it results from the fact 
> that community membership is quite diverse, bring a lot of different 
> experience and insight to bear.
>
> As more and more DLT systems emerge, it becomes appealing to me to be able 
> to use partial segments from multiple systems as an effective combination 
> lock.  For example, a combination of:
>
>- The first 4 digits of the latitue and longiture of (as reported by 
>my cell phone) 
>- The last 4 digits of an active Credit Card (verifiable against 
>Credit Bureau data, together with full Address)
>- A reference to a recognized Social Media site (preferably with a 
>Pictire and peer reviewed) e.g. linkedIn or Flickr
>- The last 4 digits of my Passport number
>- ...
>
> Depending need, I can select various combinations that even include a 
> startTime and validity Duraction.
>  
> With a bit of proper encoding into a Unicode hash, it becomes possible to 
> even make such a key remarkably short since there are about 2.2 million 
> useful Unicode points have been defined, ensuring that (2e6)e4 gives more 
> than enough room!
>
> The appeal is that I can create distinct Tokens that meet my Security and 
> Privacy needs, but that others can verify from reliable sources of public 
> Definitive Data.
>
> Comments will be appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
> Hans
>
> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 5:14:52 AM UTC-4 inmy...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> or perhaps I am being too hard on the idea. Instead if you all want I can 
>> add blockchain to tiddlywiki and sell NFTs pointing to wikis that I made, 
>> like the original twederation wiki or the interaction fiction wiki.
>>
>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 10:54:03 AM UTC+2 Jed Carty wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, the central question is could blockchain be useful to tiddlywiki. 
>>> And so far the only answer has been to use it as a proof of existence by 
>>> storing what is in one blockchain (file hashes in git) in a different from 
>>> in another block chain.
>>>
>>> Also, traceability in a blockchain is guaranteed only for events that 
>>> happen on the blockchain, not for what the blockchain is supposed to 
>>> represent. It is always open to any sort of manipulation at the human 
>>> interface side. I could start a car tracing block chain, and I could add 
>>> 1 cars to it saying that I own them. That has no bearing on the real 
>>> world without some mediating central authority, and with a mediating 
>>> central authority the blockchain is redundant.
>>>
>>> People keep saying 'I am not familiar with the technology' and then 
>>> arguing against someone who has studied the theory and technology that goes 
>>> into blockchains in academic, hobby and professional capacities. The blind 
>>> faith in the unchangeable nature of a blockchain is a huge security risk to 
>>> anything that uses it. It is worth repeating over and over: all the 
>>> guarantees are just for the numbers stored on the computer, there are 
>>> absolutely no guarantees about what those numbers represent. All the 
>>> traceability claims completely fail when it gets to the data entry into the 
>>> blockchain.
>>>
>>> After working with some startups I am very familiar with how easy it is 
>>> to separate people from large sums of money by making magical claims that 
>>> aren't backed up by reality, investment in a technology and the actual 
>>> utility of the technology don't correlate. 
>>>
>>> And as far as smart contracts go, never sign a contract you don't 
>>> understand. Someone with my skills would be able to make a contract that 
>>> does whatever I want it to do and have it all be essentially invisible to 
>>> someone who isn't intimately familiar with the technology that goes though 
>>> the code line 

Re: [tw5] Is blockchain still not for TW?

[Hans Wobbe]

I remain interested in Distributed Ledger Technology much more than I am 
interested in BitCoin and its other financial derivatives, that even 
Central Banks are considering as Cash replacements.  ( And I am not at all 
interested in NFTs since the Name says it all ... "Non Fungible" ... )

One thing I really appreciate about this communitiy is the technological 
creativity that emerges here.  In part, I think it results from the fact 
that community membership is quite diverse, bring a lot of different 
experience and insight to bear.

As more and more DLT systems emerge, it becomes appealing to me to be able 
to use partial segments from multiple systems as an effective combination 
lock.  For example, a combination of:

   - The first 4 digits of the latitue and longiture of (as reported by my 
   cell phone) 
   - The last 4 digits of an active Credit Card (verifiable against Credit 
   Bureau data, together with full Address)
   - A reference to a recognized Social Media site (preferably with a 
   Pictire and peer reviewed) e.g. linkedIn or Flickr
   - The last 4 digits of my Passport number
   - ...

Depending need, I can select various combinations that even include a 
startTime and validity Duraction.
 
With a bit of proper encoding into a Unicode hash, it becomes possible to 
even make such a key remarkably short since there are about 2.2 million 
useful Unicode points have been defined, ensuring that (2e6)e4 gives more 
than enough room!

The appeal is that I can create distinct Tokens that meet my Security and 
Privacy needs, but that others can verify from reliable sources of public 
Definitive Data.

Comments will be appreciated.

Cheers,
Hans

On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 5:14:52 AM UTC-4 inmy...@gmail.com wrote:

> or perhaps I am being too hard on the idea. Instead if you all want I can 
> add blockchain to tiddlywiki and sell NFTs pointing to wikis that I made, 
> like the original twederation wiki or the interaction fiction wiki.
>
> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 10:54:03 AM UTC+2 Jed Carty wrote:
>
>> Yes, the central question is could blockchain be useful to tiddlywiki. 
>> And so far the only answer has been to use it as a proof of existence by 
>> storing what is in one blockchain (file hashes in git) in a different from 
>> in another block chain.
>>
>> Also, traceability in a blockchain is guaranteed only for events that 
>> happen on the blockchain, not for what the blockchain is supposed to 
>> represent. It is always open to any sort of manipulation at the human 
>> interface side. I could start a car tracing block chain, and I could add 
>> 1 cars to it saying that I own them. That has no bearing on the real 
>> world without some mediating central authority, and with a mediating 
>> central authority the blockchain is redundant.
>>
>> People keep saying 'I am not familiar with the technology' and then 
>> arguing against someone who has studied the theory and technology that goes 
>> into blockchains in academic, hobby and professional capacities. The blind 
>> faith in the unchangeable nature of a blockchain is a huge security risk to 
>> anything that uses it. It is worth repeating over and over: all the 
>> guarantees are just for the numbers stored on the computer, there are 
>> absolutely no guarantees about what those numbers represent. All the 
>> traceability claims completely fail when it gets to the data entry into the 
>> blockchain.
>>
>> After working with some startups I am very familiar with how easy it is 
>> to separate people from large sums of money by making magical claims that 
>> aren't backed up by reality, investment in a technology and the actual 
>> utility of the technology don't correlate. 
>>
>> And as far as smart contracts go, never sign a contract you don't 
>> understand. Someone with my skills would be able to make a contract that 
>> does whatever I want it to do and have it all be essentially invisible to 
>> someone who isn't intimately familiar with the technology that goes though 
>> the code line by line to verify every part of it.
>> As as example: 
>> https://kf106.medium.com/how-to-sleepmint-nft-tokens-bc347dc148f2
>>
>> For ip protection, if Sony (or any other large monied entity) wanted to 
>> claim ownership of anything I have created I would bet on their money and 
>> lawyers over any proof I have of ownership every time, regardless of what 
>> proof of ownership I have, no matter how impossible it is to counterfeit.
>>
>> But, all of that is off topic, to address the original topic, there are 
>> three questions that need to be answered: what, how and why.
>> Why is easy, because it could be interesting. So we don't have to worry 
>> about that.
>> What is the important one that hasn't been answered aside from a legally 
>> untested method for proof of ip ownership. And that isn't a method for 
>> tiddlywiki so much as just an option using external tools. And given what I 
>> know, I would never accept a hash stored on a 

Re: [tw5] Is blockchain still not for TW?

[Jed Carty]

or perhaps I am being too hard on the idea. Instead if you all want I can 
add blockchain to tiddlywiki and sell NFTs pointing to wikis that I made, 
like the original twederation wiki or the interaction fiction wiki.

On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 10:54:03 AM UTC+2 Jed Carty wrote:

> Yes, the central question is could blockchain be useful to tiddlywiki. And 
> so far the only answer has been to use it as a proof of existence by 
> storing what is in one blockchain (file hashes in git) in a different from 
> in another block chain.
>
> Also, traceability in a blockchain is guaranteed only for events that 
> happen on the blockchain, not for what the blockchain is supposed to 
> represent. It is always open to any sort of manipulation at the human 
> interface side. I could start a car tracing block chain, and I could add 
> 1 cars to it saying that I own them. That has no bearing on the real 
> world without some mediating central authority, and with a mediating 
> central authority the blockchain is redundant.
>
> People keep saying 'I am not familiar with the technology' and then 
> arguing against someone who has studied the theory and technology that goes 
> into blockchains in academic, hobby and professional capacities. The blind 
> faith in the unchangeable nature of a blockchain is a huge security risk to 
> anything that uses it. It is worth repeating over and over: all the 
> guarantees are just for the numbers stored on the computer, there are 
> absolutely no guarantees about what those numbers represent. All the 
> traceability claims completely fail when it gets to the data entry into the 
> blockchain.
>
> After working with some startups I am very familiar with how easy it is to 
> separate people from large sums of money by making magical claims that 
> aren't backed up by reality, investment in a technology and the actual 
> utility of the technology don't correlate. 
>
> And as far as smart contracts go, never sign a contract you don't 
> understand. Someone with my skills would be able to make a contract that 
> does whatever I want it to do and have it all be essentially invisible to 
> someone who isn't intimately familiar with the technology that goes though 
> the code line by line to verify every part of it.
> As as example: 
> https://kf106.medium.com/how-to-sleepmint-nft-tokens-bc347dc148f2
>
> For ip protection, if Sony (or any other large monied entity) wanted to 
> claim ownership of anything I have created I would bet on their money and 
> lawyers over any proof I have of ownership every time, regardless of what 
> proof of ownership I have, no matter how impossible it is to counterfeit.
>
> But, all of that is off topic, to address the original topic, there are 
> three questions that need to be answered: what, how and why.
> Why is easy, because it could be interesting. So we don't have to worry 
> about that.
> What is the important one that hasn't been answered aside from a legally 
> untested method for proof of ip ownership. And that isn't a method for 
> tiddlywiki so much as just an option using external tools. And given what I 
> know, I would never accept a hash stored on a blockchain as the only proof 
> of a claim if there were any significant consequences related to it.
> It is impossible to answer how without answering what first.
>
> So, what would any blockchain technology do in tiddlywiki? Without that we 
> may as well say 'should we incorporate Ingenuity flying on mars into 
> tiddlywiki?' No one is going to claim that Ingenuity isn't important or 
> worth paying attention to, but what does the question even mean? It is just 
> gibberish without some idea of what 'incorporate' would involve.
>
> This is the exact same question as before and it needs an answer before 
> there is any chance of discussion other than playing buzzword bingo. Like 
> what does 'a blockchain of secure tiddlers' mean in practical terms?
>
> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 3:07:54 AM UTC+2 TW Tones wrote:
>
>> Mart,
>>
>> I applaud your raising blockchain as a possible integration to 
>> tiddlywiki. 
>>
>> I spent some time researching the technology, but I could not build an 
>> instance, nor am I an expert, however some thoughts;
>>
>> I think it could be a good technology to make use of with tiddlywiki, 
>> especially since it does promote secure sharing, unalterable "documents" 
>> and cutting out the middlemen (which is some ways a feature of tiddlywiki), 
>>
>> Perhaps the first application I can see is if there were a way to publish 
>> selected tiddlers into a blockchain, effectively small documents. A range 
>> of features not possible in standard tiddlywiki would then become available 
>> to tiddlywiki users and designers. In this case we would look at a 
>> providing secure, certified shared information services via such a 
>> blockchain and to users of tiddlywiki. Plugins and utility data could be 
>> published to the blockchain for public access and private tiddlers for 

Re: [tw5] Is blockchain still not for TW?

[Jed Carty]

Yes, the central question is could blockchain be useful to tiddlywiki. And 
so far the only answer has been to use it as a proof of existence by 
storing what is in one blockchain (file hashes in git) in a different from 
in another block chain.

Also, traceability in a blockchain is guaranteed only for events that 
happen on the blockchain, not for what the blockchain is supposed to 
represent. It is always open to any sort of manipulation at the human 
interface side. I could start a car tracing block chain, and I could add 
1 cars to it saying that I own them. That has no bearing on the real 
world without some mediating central authority, and with a mediating 
central authority the blockchain is redundant.

People keep saying 'I am not familiar with the technology' and then arguing 
against someone who has studied the theory and technology that goes into 
blockchains in academic, hobby and professional capacities. The blind faith 
in the unchangeable nature of a blockchain is a huge security risk to 
anything that uses it. It is worth repeating over and over: all the 
guarantees are just for the numbers stored on the computer, there are 
absolutely no guarantees about what those numbers represent. All the 
traceability claims completely fail when it gets to the data entry into the 
blockchain.

After working with some startups I am very familiar with how easy it is to 
separate people from large sums of money by making magical claims that 
aren't backed up by reality, investment in a technology and the actual 
utility of the technology don't correlate. 

And as far as smart contracts go, never sign a contract you don't 
understand. Someone with my skills would be able to make a contract that 
does whatever I want it to do and have it all be essentially invisible to 
someone who isn't intimately familiar with the technology that goes though 
the code line by line to verify every part of it.
As as 
example: https://kf106.medium.com/how-to-sleepmint-nft-tokens-bc347dc148f2

For ip protection, if Sony (or any other large monied entity) wanted to 
claim ownership of anything I have created I would bet on their money and 
lawyers over any proof I have of ownership every time, regardless of what 
proof of ownership I have, no matter how impossible it is to counterfeit.

But, all of that is off topic, to address the original topic, there are 
three questions that need to be answered: what, how and why.
Why is easy, because it could be interesting. So we don't have to worry 
about that.
What is the important one that hasn't been answered aside from a legally 
untested method for proof of ip ownership. And that isn't a method for 
tiddlywiki so much as just an option using external tools. And given what I 
know, I would never accept a hash stored on a blockchain as the only proof 
of a claim if there were any significant consequences related to it.
It is impossible to answer how without answering what first.

So, what would any blockchain technology do in tiddlywiki? Without that we 
may as well say 'should we incorporate Ingenuity flying on mars into 
tiddlywiki?' No one is going to claim that Ingenuity isn't important or 
worth paying attention to, but what does the question even mean? It is just 
gibberish without some idea of what 'incorporate' would involve.

This is the exact same question as before and it needs an answer before 
there is any chance of discussion other than playing buzzword bingo. Like 
what does 'a blockchain of secure tiddlers' mean in practical terms?

On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 3:07:54 AM UTC+2 TW Tones wrote:

> Mart,
>
> I applaud your raising blockchain as a possible integration to tiddlywiki. 
>
> I spent some time researching the technology, but I could not build an 
> instance, nor am I an expert, however some thoughts;
>
> I think it could be a good technology to make use of with tiddlywiki, 
> especially since it does promote secure sharing, unalterable "documents" 
> and cutting out the middlemen (which is some ways a feature of tiddlywiki), 
>
> Perhaps the first application I can see is if there were a way to publish 
> selected tiddlers into a blockchain, effectively small documents. A range 
> of features not possible in standard tiddlywiki would then become available 
> to tiddlywiki users and designers. In this case we would look at a 
> providing secure, certified shared information services via such a 
> blockchain and to users of tiddlywiki. Plugins and utility data could be 
> published to the blockchain for public access and private tiddlers for 
> security `between wikis and wiki users.
>
> Now this somewhat simplified description of a block chain of secure 
> tiddlers could actually generate a wide number of seriously powerful 
> solutions, by keeping it to a simple set of enabling blockchain 
> technologies linked to the tiddler. I have cultivated a creative side to my 
> use of Information Technology and can imagine many possibilities, but I 
> will not 

Re: [tw5] Is blockchain still not for TW?

[TW Tones]

Mart,

I applaud your raising blockchain as a possible integration to tiddlywiki. 

I spent some time researching the technology, but I could not build an 
instance, nor am I an expert, however some thoughts;

I think it could be a good technology to make use of with tiddlywiki, 
especially since it does promote secure sharing, unalterable "documents" 
and cutting out the middlemen (which is some ways a feature of tiddlywiki), 

Perhaps the first application I can see is if there were a way to publish 
selected tiddlers into a blockchain, effectively small documents. A range 
of features not possible in standard tiddlywiki would then become available 
to tiddlywiki users and designers. In this case we would look at a 
providing secure, certified shared information services via such a 
blockchain and to users of tiddlywiki. Plugins and utility data could be 
published to the blockchain for public access and private tiddlers for 
security `between wikis and wiki users.

Now this somewhat simplified description of a block chain of secure 
tiddlers could actually generate a wide number of seriously powerful 
solutions, by keeping it to a simple set of enabling blockchain 
technologies linked to the tiddler. I have cultivated a creative side to my 
use of Information Technology and can imagine many possibilities, but I 
will not extrapolate for know asI hope others may contribute ideas 
unaffected by what I think.

As a person concerned with environmental damage I would be keen not to 
develop a mining process that costs so much computing power as just bitcoin 
is already using a substantial percentage of total world computing and 
power resources. I am not sure what this means for our possible uses.

Regards
Tones

On Sunday, 9 May 2021 at 19:26:17 UTC+10 Mat wrote:

> @inmysocks
>
> That's a very sober approach - but/and which I don't think anyone has 
> contradicted. My question is; *could *blockchain somehow be of value for 
> TW? I would not be surprised if it could, especially for aspects that we 
> currently disregard or dismiss for TW. After all, TW is very generic so one 
> way of looking at the question is if there are non-TW use cases that where 
> blockchain is advantagous or even critical, and only *then* ask if TW 
> could be incorporated and bring value in that context.
>
> Interestingly, you question the value of blockchain tech per se and 
> identify a single use case (NFT's for collectable toys). I didn't intend 
> for this thread to go there but I guess it's run its course so:
>
> I can see many use cases where blockchains make sense: One general area is 
> "traceability". For example a *car blockchain* that tracks ownership of 
> cars, their mileage, repairs etc. Or a housing registry. Makes a lot of 
> sense to me. I can also see how central banks / nations would want full 
> control over their money flows. Here's 
> a use general case for "logistics" 
> and explanation for why blockchain tech supposedly is perfect for it. If 
> nothing else, the article should make it clear (at least to me) that it can 
> be difficult to see the use of blockchain if one doesn't actually know of 
> the needs for the particular business. Other than traceability, blockchains 
> also bring the smart contract aspect that cuts out middle men for 
> transactions. A pretty big deal and potentially an enormous money saver. 
> And, if nothing else, at least the potential for decentralized control of 
> things should resonate with TW folks.
>
> Disclaimer: I know very little about blockchain tech but it is becoming a 
> mature technology and there's billions USD poured into it... so there has 
> to be *something *to it, I figure...
>
> <:-)
>
>

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/999f5bee-55d2-49dd-952d-f953650d2740n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [tw5] Is blockchain still not for TW?

[Soren Bjornstad]

One blockchain-related thing I do with my TiddlyWiki is stamp the Git repo 
containing the wiki with OpenTimestamps . It 
piggybacks on PGP signing, adding a timestamp on top of the signature. 
Whenever a commit is made, it calculates hashes for all the blobs in the 
commit and (through a Merkle tree calculated by an OpenTimestamps server, 
to reduce the number of blockchain transactions required to a manageable 
level) submits proof of that hash to the Bitcoin blockchain within a couple 
of hours. (Bitcoin only right now, but the protocol is flexible enough to 
support other options.)

This can prove that a particular version of the wiki existed as of a 
specific time in the Git logs. So if I ever had a plagiarism or copyright 
dispute, or ended up in court in a situation where some of my notes were 
relevant, I would be able to prove that I had the notes no later than a 
specific date.

$ git log --show-signature
commit d9aead06217e377ef3e45da3a430566aec2f2d5b 
ots: Got 3 attestation(s) from cache 
ots: Success! Bitcoin block 679274 attests existence as of 2021-04-14 CDT 
ots: Good timestamp 
gpg: Signature made Wed 14 Apr 2021 10:01:08 PM CDT 
gpg:using RSA key 0AFBDCFD915DD0AE5B0FF14D3DE2F7C1129828AC 
gpg: Good signature from "Soren I. Bjornstad (Zettelkasten Signing) 
" 
[ultimate]

There's also a *ots git-extract* command that can extract the signature for 
just a particular file (tiddler) at a particular commit – that way you 
don't have to share your whole Git repository with someone who wants to 
verify.

I've never had to use this, but it's free, not hard to set up, and could 
come in handy someday. It is definitely something that cannot be done 
without either blockchain or a central authority that all parties trust, 
including parties you may not know about yet.

On Sunday, May 9, 2021 at 4:26:17 AM UTC-5 Mat wrote:

> @inmysocks
>
> That's a very sober approach - but/and which I don't think anyone has 
> contradicted. My question is; *could *blockchain somehow be of value for 
> TW? I would not be surprised if it could, especially for aspects that we 
> currently disregard or dismiss for TW. After all, TW is very generic so one 
> way of looking at the question is if there are non-TW use cases that where 
> blockchain is advantagous or even critical, and only *then* ask if TW 
> could be incorporated and bring value in that context.
>
> Interestingly, you question the value of blockchain tech per se and 
> identify a single use case (NFT's for collectable toys). I didn't intend 
> for this thread to go there but I guess it's run its course so:
>
> I can see many use cases where blockchains make sense: One general area is 
> "traceability". For example a *car blockchain* that tracks ownership of 
> cars, their mileage, repairs etc. Or a housing registry. Makes a lot of 
> sense to me. I can also see how central banks / nations would want full 
> control over their money flows. Here's 
> a use general case for "logistics" 
> and explanation for why blockchain tech supposedly is perfect for it. If 
> nothing else, the article should make it clear (at least to me) that it can 
> be difficult to see the use of blockchain if one doesn't actually know of 
> the needs for the particular business. Other than traceability, blockchains 
> also bring the smart contract aspect that cuts out middle men for 
> transactions. A pretty big deal and potentially an enormous money saver. 
> And, if nothing else, at least the potential for decentralized control of 
> things should resonate with TW folks.
>
> Disclaimer: I know very little about blockchain tech but it is becoming a 
> mature technology and there's billions USD poured into it... so there has 
> to be *something *to it, I figure...
>
> <:-)
>
>

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/bd301dcb-ae53-4294-889a-7fddf9b5dee5n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [tw5] Is blockchain still not for TW?

[Mat]

@inmysocks

That's a very sober approach - but/and which I don't think anyone has 
contradicted. My question is; *could *blockchain somehow be of value for 
TW? I would not be surprised if it could, especially for aspects that we 
currently disregard or dismiss for TW. After all, TW is very generic so one 
way of looking at the question is if there are non-TW use cases that where 
blockchain is advantagous or even critical, and only *then* ask if TW could 
be incorporated and bring value in that context.

Interestingly, you question the value of blockchain tech per se and 
identify a single use case (NFT's for collectable toys). I didn't intend 
for this thread to go there but I guess it's run its course so:

I can see many use cases where blockchains make sense: One general area is 
"traceability". For example a *car blockchain* that tracks ownership of 
cars, their mileage, repairs etc. Or a housing registry. Makes a lot of 
sense to me. I can also see how central banks / nations would want full 
control over their money flows. Here's 
a use general case for "logistics" 
and explanation for why blockchain tech supposedly is perfect for it. If 
nothing else, the article should make it clear (at least to me) that it can 
be difficult to see the use of blockchain if one doesn't actually know of 
the needs for the particular business. Other than traceability, blockchains 
also bring the smart contract aspect that cuts out middle men for 
transactions. A pretty big deal and potentially an enormous money saver. 
And, if nothing else, at least the potential for decentralized control of 
things should resonate with TW folks.

Disclaimer: I know very little about blockchain tech but it is becoming a 
mature technology and there's billions USD poured into it... so there has 
to be *something *to it, I figure...

<:-)

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/74f67237-173e-410e-a80c-9cb4576d26a6n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [tw5] Is blockchain still not for TW?

[Jed Carty]

The first, and really only, question about all of this is, what would be 
improved by adding a blockchain or NFTs?

And then, if somehow there is something to improve, is the improvement get 
us more than the cost in complexity and real-word resources required to 
build and maintain the chain?

This was the part that was never actually address in previous discussions, 
there were a lot of comments about how we would be improving tiddlywiki in 
some way, but there were no descriptions of how this would actually happen 
or what the improvements would be.

Of the examples on the list you linked to which ones are actually improved 
by the inclusion of a blockchain?

For security things a blockchain just gives a vector for behavioural 
analysis that is necessarily publicly viewable without any demonstrated 
benefit over other simpler systems that don't consume the resources needed 
to create and maintain a secure blockchain. Putting medical records in a 
block chain means that if someone manages to get access to my records they 
have permanent access. Why would I want there to be a permanent unalterable 
record of my health? In order for it to be useful other people have to have 
access to it and as has been demonstrated many many times even the best 
intentioned people are not good with security, and it being a permanent 
addition to the blockchain means that anyone who has access now doesn't 
just have to have good security practices now, they have to have good 
security practices forever or it affects me directly.

For all the manufacturing and industrial applications the propertied 
benefits aren't really there. A permanent unalterable record of supply 
chain movement is only useful if no one ever makes mistakes, because it is 
unalterable so you can't fix a mistake, and no one lies. I could say there 
are 1 items in a shipment when there are actually only 9500 and as long 
as it got one step away from me I have 'proof' that I delivered what I 
claimed and whoever the person in the chain before the one who discovers 
the discrepancy is the one left with the blame.

Aside from git, which existed for decades before the term 'blockchain' 
became generally known, the only application I have seen that could be 
reasonably argued to be improved by adding a blockchain or NFTs are 
collectable toys where the NFT makes creating a false certificate of 
authenticity more difficult.
But then without some other form of proof there isn't any way to actually 
know that the person who created the original NFT is acting in good faith, 
the entire system is based on there not being any bad actors in the entire 
system. The 'trustless' part comes after a step that requires blind trust.


On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 7:32:48 AM UTC+2 Mat wrote:

> Indeed as some of you note, I just posted this as food for thought.
>
> BTW, here's some decent list 
>  I found with 
> examles of uses of blockchain tech.
>
> Please note that this thread is not a discussion about the validity of 
> Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies. That is a totally different discussion.
>
> <:-)
> On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 5:06:00 AM UTC+2 Javier Rojas wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 03:41:58AM -0700, Mat wrote:
>> > Some years ago I posted 
>> >  
>> the 
>> > idea about TW on blockchain (i.e the tech upon which e.g Bitcoin is 
>> based). 
>> > It was not met with any enthusiasm but I wonder if the sentiment is 
>> still 
>> > the same.
>>
>> so, what has changed regarding bitcon (not a typo) and the blockchain in
>> general?
>>
>> I mean, for the better. Nothing, from what I see. If anything, nowadays
>> is even more clear to everybody that it is nothing but a really toxic
>> ponzi scheme.
>>
>> -- 
>> Javier
>>
>

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/f42324af-abb9-467c-96d2-eb857770fb16n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [tw5] Is blockchain still not for TW?

[Mat]

Indeed as some of you note, I just posted this as food for thought.

BTW, here's some decent list 
 I found with 
examles of uses of blockchain tech.

Please note that this thread is not a discussion about the validity of 
Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies. That is a totally different discussion.

<:-)
On Monday, May 3, 2021 at 5:06:00 AM UTC+2 Javier Rojas wrote:

> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 03:41:58AM -0700, Mat wrote:
> > Some years ago I posted 
> >  
> the 
> > idea about TW on blockchain (i.e the tech upon which e.g Bitcoin is 
> based). 
> > It was not met with any enthusiasm but I wonder if the sentiment is 
> still 
> > the same.
>
> so, what has changed regarding bitcon (not a typo) and the blockchain in
> general?
>
> I mean, for the better. Nothing, from what I see. If anything, nowadays
> is even more clear to everybody that it is nothing but a really toxic
> ponzi scheme.
>
> -- 
> Javier
>

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/2fba5685-040b-47cb-9892-d3db13a7b4efn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [tw5] Is blockchain still not for TW?

[Javier Eduardo Rojas Romero]

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 03:41:58AM -0700, Mat wrote:
> Some years ago I posted 
>  the 
> idea about TW on blockchain (i.e the tech upon which e.g Bitcoin is based). 
> It was not met with any enthusiasm but I wonder if the sentiment is still 
> the same.

so, what has changed regarding bitcon (not a typo) and the blockchain in
general?

I mean, for the better. Nothing, from what I see. If anything, nowadays
is even more clear to everybody that it is nothing but a really toxic
ponzi scheme.

-- 
Javier

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/YI9oixEEjRDSsmZw%40alamut.home.org.

[tw5] Is blockchain still not for TW?

[Mat]

Some years ago I posted 
 the 
idea about TW on blockchain (i.e the tech upon which e.g Bitcoin is based). 
It was not met with any enthusiasm but I wonder if the sentiment is still 
the same.

At least two things have changed:

   1. We now all curse at why we didn't by loads of cryptocoins ;-) 
   2. The concept of NFT's have become more mainstream.

In brief, a NFT is an entitiy on a 
blockchain that is unique and non-divisable. 

I can definitely see a case for tiddlers as NFTs. Both entities are uniqe 
and can have a unique owner. They are public and forkable (i.e 'copyable'). 
I assume also full TW's could be NFTs.

A tiddler author could have a physical proof of origination and ownership. 
The NFT could probably be made to contain revision history.

In addition it could make tiddlers tradeable. Why would anybody want that? 
I don't know, but I can at least *understand* that some things manifested 
in tiddly form could have economic value. When we think of tiddlers today, 
they are freely shared so instead think of the tiddlers that we don't see 
today. Just like e.g "images" can be freely shared (great!) there is also 
*justification* for non-free images. Or burger recipes. Or custom tiddly 
solutions.

I would not be surprised if TW-on-blockchain is created one sunny day, when 
the blockchain tech is simplified to a degree that is is easy enough to set 
these things up and the costs are low enough, including costs from of using 
the system.

Motovun Jack as a CryptoKitty, anybody?

Just sayin.

<:-)

-- 
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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/ad3577d3-88f7-4c4a-8ac0-c56d9a96e9b8n%40googlegroups.com.