My first reaction when I read "peer-to-peer" in the title was "cool" followed immediately with "oh it's going to push some cryptocurrency crap, isn't it?"

But honestly after reading the page it look fine to me. Oddly enough they seem to use cryptocurrencies as... currency. They don't bullshit you by saying that you're going to store your code on the blockchain.

Besides, while I long ago became tired of the cryptocurrency crowd reinventing squared wheels every other month, the problem of rewarding open source developers is still very much an open issue, so I'm willing to give it a chance, even if I'm not holding my breath.

This seems like a cool project frankly, at least on paper, I don't think it's fair to discard it just because it bundles some optional Ethereum support.

Actually after downloading the upstream client my only complaint so far is that it's yet an other bloated Electron app, but such is life in 2020...

Because the cryptocurrency hype funds/funded most of those projects and/or the prospect of adding a cryptocurrency to the projects causes VCs to fund those projects.

In this particular case Radicle came out of OScoin (or is the new incarnation of it?) and was funded by BlueYard.

Ethereum (and blockchain tech in general) genuinely open new doors to development and make it possible to do things that were not possible before. Especially now that we're several years further along, the tooling is a lot better and the design space is significantly more thoroughly explored.

Yes, there's a lot of shady activity, a lot of scams, a lot of broken technology, and a lot of people with visions they can't deliver upon, but the same was true in the early days of the Internet and blockchain is starting to move past the 'dotcom bubble' phase and onto 'this tech is actually useful' phase.

It's not there yet, most of the tech is still nascent, but it's a lot less nascent than it was in 2017, and there are more people working on it than ever.

quick hand raise for the IPFS community, which is yes p2p, no blockchain. I'm working a "git for data" project atop IPFS and aren't hawking a coin.

I'll readily admit there are very few yes-p2p and no-blockchain projects out there, but we exist

Because you want a way to move money around eventually. Eg. How do you do GitHub sponsors p2p?

Peer to peer AI Machine learning with blockchain on AWS cloud.

Without an external entity assisting with proof-of-stake like Kraken, etc., Bitcoin (the system) is dependent on not just peers connecting to each other to have merry time with financial transactions, but on something called proof-of-work (https://www.kraken.com/en-us/learn/proof-of-work-vs-proof-of...).

That proof-of-work in the Bitcoin system itself (without use of an external entity to handle proof-of-stake) is today largely handled by workhorses like those getting cheap electricity from thermal vents in Iceland (https://www.wired.com/story/iceland-bitcoin-mining-gallery/) verifying more and more transactions for less and less benefit. They're reliant on Moore's law and cheaper and cheaper energy, with more and more trust overhead processing by validating transactions, which doesn't necessarily scale, creating a need for proof-of-stake entities to substitute.

Etherium (the system) contains within it proof of stake, but external entities (e.g. Kraken, etc.) can still validate proof of stake, if desired. Personally, I'm unsure if Etherium's proof of stake on its own is enough, because I think blockchain can be compromised (https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/02/19/239592/once-hail...).

So, that's essentially why they choose Etherium (proof of stake).

Global equity and inequity revolves around those that essentially "hold" the value (proof of stake), and banks hold the money in our current financial system, largely based on USD (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/11/popular-curre...). Large banks have the ability to basically "re-use" debt multiple times, creating debt from debt (via Fractional Reserve Banking) as well as other means (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/081415/under...). Wherever you are and whatever chaste you're in, if you can sell your potential for paying a bank back, they can create money out of debt for you. Yes, this devalues the currency, but if you do well with it, you come out on top, you give back in interest, and the overall value is greater than the inflation of the currency, and outsiders investing in those companies can be important. If investment, etc. fails or the market fails, that system fails. Otherwise, it kind of works ok.

The proof-of-stake entities will hopefully continue to generate value similar from nothing/debt to help those that can help others until this world is done and we move on.

Of course, if there were no money and we all just did work for each other, I think that could work also. While money was still made from work, there is some element of communal living / working for each other in Christianity (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskBibleScholars/comments/ah5850/di... https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/maps...).

But, 1960s hippie communes tended to get corrupted by drugs, relationship problems, abuse, etc. (https://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/03/us/excesses-blamed-for-de...) And countries that adopted Communism and Socialism have tended to include leaders that really mistreated their population or performed other atrocities, or it just didn't work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Soviet_Uni... https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/ch... https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/three-nati...).

I'm not an expert in these things, so let me know what I'm not understanding.