These sorts of things are still blockable through DNS and IP filters cutting off access to the root nodes and such I would guess.
As such, what is the use case?
As such, what is the use case?
Everything, of course, can be blocked at some point, but the thing to remember is that there are other kinds of contracts that existed long before smart contracts - and these things are already leveraged in society.
The internet isn't going to disappear tomorrow, but I would agree there are longer term risks, so let's build today.
There's been a lot of talk about decentralization lately, and Cypherpunks write code. So I wrote code instead of a blog post.
I also don't think it's accurate. Handshake is a cryptographically certified way of establishing identity . Since torrents are now mutable via handshake, it seems like webtorrents can be updated & moved as needed. Further, peer-exchange processes mean that having the initial seeds up probably isn't even a requirement. Even if one particular ip address or site gets cut down, the swarm can use other webtorrent trackers to re-spawn & carry-on.
Aside from your criticism being either inaccureate or misleading, I'd also say the use case doesn't need to, imo, be 100% perfect in every way to be worthwhile. I'm glad someone did seek better, & bothered. A decentralized, updateable, browser-based torrent is incredible leap for a web of data, for interconnection. Even if it's not 100% completely uncensorable, it's many leaps in the right direction, towards decentralization. Especially decentralization without coordination/consensus, which I think is great & vast improvement over the harsh & strict type of computing that *coins have dominated the field with. This work is far more interesting to me.
The project is marketed as unblockable, etc and yet we both conclude it is blockable from the start with existing network management tools that are deployed in places like Iran and China.
I was asking a genuine question of use case.