Why would you want to spam a financial payment system with useless non-financial related information? This will also lead to centralization
when the Blockchain grows too big. A huge Blockchain would force some people too stop running a node, because of increased bandwidth and
storage space. In the end you will have a few data warehouses running nodes and this will kill decentralization.
when the Blockchain grows too big. A huge Blockchain would force some people too stop running a node, because of increased bandwidth and
storage space. In the end you will have a few data warehouses running nodes and this will kill decentralization.
I know that using a Blockchain to power the internet nowadays would not be the most viable solution. But, I believe that it may change at some point in the future, as technology evolves in storage capacity and bandwidth. Perhaps, running the internet entirely over the blockchain is not ideal, but it could serve its purposes to secure some areas of the internet like user authentication, and more.
That is my altcoin project, BitNet.
Cool. Never thought that such a project would exist. I would appreciate if you could give me more information about it, or advice by contacting me via PM. Anything that related with the blockchain grabs up my attention.
This has nothing to do with centralization
If we accept this point, we could then just as easily claim that Bitcoin itself is "somewhat centralized" because governments can shut down a Bitcoin node or a mining farm. The whole point of decentralization revolves around resistance to such actions, i.e. shutting down one site or node doesn't shut down the whole system. Apart from that, it is pointless to replicate a site (or whole Internet) over blockchain (somehow else) since if the resource gets closed or access to it is blocked, its copy could be launched elsewhere in less than no time
If we accept this point, we could then just as easily claim that Bitcoin itself is "somewhat centralized" because governments can shut down a Bitcoin node or a mining farm. The whole point of decentralization revolves around resistance to such actions, i.e. shutting down one site or node doesn't shut down the whole system. Apart from that, it is pointless to replicate a site (or whole Internet) over blockchain (somehow else) since if the resource gets closed or access to it is blocked, its copy could be launched elsewhere in less than no time
Yes, but that is not what I meant. I know that governments could shut down nodes, even those of Bitcoin which are vulnerable. But still, even if they manage to shut down several nodes, there will always be other nodes residing on several countries which make it difficult to take down the whole network.
The point that I'm bringing here is redundancy where content remains distributed across a network of computers, and will remain in there forever if there is a single node on the network. But again, I know that it may not be the most viable solution nowadays, making it possible at some point in the future.
Maybe someday, we will get to see a truly libertarian internet without the need of any centralized service provider, or single point of failure. If successful, there could be a future where there would be no central Internet Service Provider (probably via the use of mesh networks), central servers or even domain name service provider (like what we have with NMC) Just sharing my thoughts.
