A few months ago I downloaded it from TPB; somewhat to my surprise it was the same torrent I had uploaded 16 years ago.
I thought that was kinda neat. It's probably also the only way to watch this TV show, legal or otherwise. "Distributed cloud backup" I suppose :-)
(I do regret the childish and embarrassing comments in the README, which are also still alive after 16 years :-/ That's also why I'm not mentioning which TV show this is.)
Relatedly, when Docker started charging open source projects for Dockerhub storage, a friend and I started brainstorming a torrent registry driver (although we didn't find a way around the project still needing to provide a signature for verification at least, even if it didn't need to maintain hosting for the image itself)
Nothing to show for it just yet, but point being I think this "distributed cloud backup" idea has a lot of interesting applications still.
But the registry implementation in the "distribution" project takes storage drivers, so an IPFS storage driver is certainly a possibility. In part for me going with Bittorrent was also just an excuse to get more familiar with the technical details of Bittorrent.
For a versioned registry, all the info can be stored in any cloud key-value store - eg. The bittorrent DHT
Say the Redis team seeds a redis:1.0 image. So far, so good.
But what if a nefarious hacker seeds a redis:2.0 image? In a traditional registry, the auth system for the registry ensures that only those who are authorized can write to a particular registry. But in (at least our understanding of) a swarm, there is no auth and therefore no way to know if a particular tag of the redis image in the swarm is legitimate or not.
if I understand you, this is where you're saying the info can be stored in the DHT, which I don't really understand at the moment but if so that sounds like something we should look into.
There is a BEP (Bittorrent Extension Protocol) for storing mutable data: like all good things in computing, it's just an indirection. Create a pair of asymetrical cryptographic keys for a specific (mutable) content and store the hash of the public key. People will search for that hash, get to some content that is any bytes you want but signed with the private key.
What you want is not exactly that, but more of a naming system. The easiest would be to let each image owner be their own source of truth: the redis team puts up an HTTPS server with a well known path, say "/.well-known/docker?identity=redis:2.0" and the reply includes the magnet link. My node would cache the association under the assumption that it never changes (it shouldn't; a change in the image implies a change in the name).
As you yourselves discovered, the swarm doesn't solve the naming issue (ie Zooko's triangle), there needs to be a third-party here
To be honest I can't be bothered to look at it further, but here's the torrent if you want to look at it yourself: https://thepiratebay.org/description.php?id=3848177 (with the disclaimer that some comments in the README do NOT represent my current attitude or views, and haven't for well over 10 years)
Oh come on, it can't be that bad...
> and no, stupid "Sci-Fi" like Stargate or Enterprise is not good science fiction
Wow. Thank you for atoning for your sins.
We stayed connected; he is currently doing a Blockchain + Climate company.
Oooh, what a fancy, high-falutin word for... writing bingo tickets to your SSD. Could more accurately be called "proof of bingo card", and then it doesn't infringe on actually interesting concepts, like relativistic physics.
I remember when the new of Chia caused SSD prices to spike around the time I was buying, in the speculative fever for free money. At least it crashed, causing the Chia miners to become irrelevant in the market. Too late for me, sadly, I was stuck paying 400% of current market prices.
Fuck Chia, fuck crypto nonsense.
And some technologies do too!
So it's natural and probably good to have thoughts and perspectives and positions on politics and technologies that impact me and my family and the world we live in (rather than be apathetic).
Should we avoid polarization, and arguing by memes, absolutely!
But like perpetual motion machine and eugenics and racism and trickle down economy, there are things in life that a) We've discussed and read about sufficiently and b) We believe they impact us negatively enough that we have a fairly established position on; something would have to change quite radically to shift it.
For cryptocurrency, I find it either naive or disingenuous to call it "just a technology" or "an algorithm". Tables and B-trees and markov's chains and blockchain may be technologies. Cryptocurrencies are an implementation and usage and ideology, not an "algorithm". It's closer to a cult religion, from where I'm sitting, and I'm terrified that zealots will push it far enough that its current (flawed! Awful! Insane!) implementations become the norm and "too big to fail".
(Snarky add-on: And even for technologies... since when did any of us not have guttural reactions and strong opinions and religious wars on technologies? JavaScript, Oracle, Microsoft, Perl, Intel vs AMD, Linux vs Windows for Apple, Kubernettes, etc etc etc... guttural reactions and strong opinions are the norm, and those are not policy-changing, environment-draining, scam-filled financial schemes :)
FWIW :)
The list was heterogeneous analogies to illustrate a point, not equivalences. And that point was: there are concepts which are not obscure and no longer new and people have had some experience with, and its ok to have a negative reaction about them until and unless some pretty darn novel new evidence or argument comes up (yet there exists a set of people who still buy into it and don't understand the negativity). Like, I have a friend who's into crypto currency and I know a guy who's into racism and I have an uncle who's working on perpetual working machine... and they'll all get a "negative gutural reaction" from me.
Because the resource waste and scalping had real, measurable impact to a lot of completely unrelated people's life.
Cryptocurrency has been used for a huge number of scams, and generally to allow criminals launder their money and do more easily their job. All of this, and more, at a huge environmental expense. Technically the concept is great, but the implementation and use has been mostly harmful so far.
If you still find utility in the dollar bill after such reflection, then the argument doesn't hold up to cryptocurrency.
Hell the damage it's done to the planet alone should give most people pause
I don't think poor uneducated unmployed people in developing countries have money to worry about.
> are the ones profiting from Crypto?
Profit is the wrong word.
In my country people are not looking for profit when they buy dollars. When even the official inflation numbers are above 120%, they are escaping state sponsored pillage.
Naturally it's illegal to buy dollars here, so the only way to do this is cash. Everyone who can save a penny will try to buy dollars, so by the strict definition, the country is pretty much filled with criminals.
Since having basic banking is something everyone wants, crypto becomes an attractive alternative for those who can sort out the technical barriers of entry.
Just as it's frustrating to have the tech dismissed as universally evil, it's also frustrating to see the technologists continue to create systems that fail to address the criminality and ecological concerns.
cryptocurrency is hated because it turns every action into a transaction.
a system with mistrust as its core principle. where the enablement of scamming masquerades as freedom.
basically thousands of incompatible pay-to-play messaging protocols all imbued with some pretty dark zero-sum incentives and fancy jargon
So it's a market. Like double entry bookkeeping. Are you similarly triggered by NASDAQ or Quickbooks or point of sale systems that use Postgres instead of a blockchain?
> its basically a pay-to-play messaging protocol with fancy jargon.
It's a fee based messaging protocol with a demand based pricing mechanic for limited block space. All messaging protocols are pay-to-play. Someone is paying for it and whatever infrastructure it runs on, even if it's free for you (via ads, spyware, etc). Only difference with a blockchain is that the infrastructure costs and fees are transparent, and it avoids dependency on a central actor.
just pointing out why I think people hate it and i think there are some valid reasons.
Don't kill the messenger, people. It doesn't help the discussion.
On one end, I do see the point of cryptocurrency as an anonymous payment method but on the other end, they have done nothing but cause me inconvenience, skyrocketing GPU and SSD prices just so they can use thousands of gigawatts of power to make $20 that will probably be down to $12 a couple hours later and pioneering the latest generation of bullshit technology that's taking grifters and AI bros by storm.