This can be addressed. Protocols not platforms™. However, these protocols need to have spam mitigation mechanisms built it. We need "RPoW" tokens deployed ubiquitously.
Spam is the reason. Phone numbers are a costly resource to spammers. Having them permanently banned from Discord after spamming is a way to keep spam down quite a lot.
I've been working on this exact problem for years, and have solved it differently. If anyone is interested, here's the draft whitepaper on my solution: https://www.stampchat.io/whitepaper.pdf
C++'s compile times are caused by design issues. Dlang compiles nearly instantaneously (for example). Lack of modules, and abiguities in the syntax are roughly what causes it.
I've already built a fully working prototype of all of this, and am looking for funding to complete it. It also supports a number of other things such as pay-to-mail that have been talked about for years.
Tipping is to incentivize personalized, special, service. The proliferation of it is because people forgot what it's for. Don't tip when you're a fungible customer.
My first floor flooded on NYE. I'm not looking forward to Wednesday -- will likely flood again. Going to be a lot of $$$ to repair and fix the drainage.
Agree with you. However, Stamp is federated only for encrypted direct messages. The twitter-ish feeds are shared everything, and anyone can spin up a node. Anyone can post anything. Good luck taking it down from all the nodes.
That's the reason for the RPoW tokens, otherwise the platform would collapse from spam/DDoS.
Also, where you accept your DMs can move relatively quickly with the way the system is designed.
Yup. The UX is going to be tricky. In the system I'm building there's a shared-everything KV store that your client publishes to similar to their system. I've got a system worked out for recovering your account in a decentralized way if a trojan exposes your key. However, I think there will be a need for services that help with this.
This is a step in the right direction. Federated protocols that aren't moderated or controlled by private organizations is critical for free speech -- but I wonder how moderation will be handled on systems like this... It seems inevitable that it will still centralize around hubs which are efficient at keeping spam off, and that inevitably leads to other types of censorship.
I think they're spot on with needing control over your identity, and them being transferable. Being locked into <username>@host.com is a big pitfall of email.
I've been working on a similar federated protocol awhile which integrates Hal Finney's RPoW concept. Moderation isn't federated which is where it diverges from things like mastodon and bluesky.
Instead, you're paid in messaging tokens by the sender to keep spam off the platform. Tokens are free, assuming you don't need mass amounts of them to spam.
I'm hoping to find some other engineers that might be interested to help work on it. Can contact me Stamp at lotus_16PSJPAVocAM5behRWxqwQnpEVRPJrV4XxbthBhJR. (Human readable handles using DIDs are something we need to get working.)
I've been working on an interesting concept precisely for this sort of thing. It's pay-to-post and DM authors in a decentralized and unmoderated way (moderation happens via the micropayments).
I would like to know what the Ozone impact these rockets will have is. It's my understanding that they burn quite a bit of the ozone up as they pass through; but my information could be wrong.
CBDCs will be an absolute disaster for personal privacy, and personal liberty. Piss off the wrong person in the right position and suddenly there's a "mistake" where you can't function at all in society.
I have been working on a decentralized social media platform that uses a token w/o cash value as a reputation and moderation system. The goal is to avoid needing a centralized content moderator. I'd love to chat about it if it sounds interesting.
We're currently using a telegram group chat as groups are still in development, only direct messages work due to complexity around the encryption.
This is a common mistake w/r/t Proof of Work. It doesn't prevent Sybil attacks. The Bitcoin whitepaper performs slight of hand to say "instead of identities, we'll use CPUs" which are obviously what Sybil attacks are in the first place. One person can own lots of CPUs... (Thus mining operations.)
What it does do is make Sybilers larger and larger shareholders in the network to make it so that the more you Sybil the network the less you'd want to try to damage it.