Thread 106197207

Randomly got recommended this
https://youtu.be/sTzBO_BliZ8
any good?

>>106197207 (OP)
go on anon, read through it and ask me again whether this shit is anything but proompted drivel

also was recommended it, something about how easily he skims over voting and 'cash' puts me a little uneasy and I'd imagine the laymen would be even more suspect about that

not a netengi so when he tells you to just 'look at it' i just see a bunch of shit that could very well be pirate software tier buzzwords that i have no way of verifying

it's an 18yo behind this btw.
man I'm an underachiever moron

>>106197207 (OP)
is this the new Urbit?

>>106197207 (OP)
Me too. Do you think it has potential?

BUY A FUCKING AD YOU FAGGOT
Or post the content to discuss it here

schizo

>>106197207 (OP)
>randomly
>I AM NOT OBSESSED WITH INTERNET MEN IT WAS RANDOM 100% RANDOM MY WHOLE LIFE ISN'T E-CELEB CONTENT
Faggot

>>106197207 (OP)
The internet now has its own Protestant movement. And I mean that in none of the ways positive...

>>106197207 (OP)
I heard crypto shit and lost interest

>>106198042
being a christian is not positive. I'd honestly rather have porn fuckers around on the internet then these fuckheads that censor literally everything. Tired of their bullshit!

>>106198066
>literally everything
I'm sorry that porn is "literally everything" to you.

>>106198104
oh i'm sorry do christians want to censor literally everything? yes they in fact do. you zoomer nigger fuckhead!

>>106198066
>>106198104
What's more, I never said I was a Christian, just viewing this from a historical perspective.

>>106198109
>do christians want to censor literally everything?
You understand that Christianity itself would fall under "literally everything," correct? Again, I'm sorry you're so demoralized that your own mindless hedonism is the only thing keeping you in this world, but that's a discussion for a friend group, and I can't say I know you at all.

>>106198149
Neat. What about it?

>>106197207 (OP)
> it's literally nothing.
> not even any source code
not even interested. couldn't even find this on the main site. had to type in the url. github has no code but they are taking "donations". post source code, fuckhead.

>>106198104
>satanist masquerading as a born again christfag
never gets old. say hi to your master named satan for me.

>>106198412
It's clearly one crypto enthusiast's manifesto for a "new" internet, that he wishes to run parallel with the current one.
>satanist
Never mind, you're as delusional as he is...

This looks like a weird grift, or some 18yo who thinks they’ve solved the problem of “the internet”. Even if this protocol worked, as soon as it became popular it’d go the same way as the current internet all over again. Probably even worse since they’ve got some regarded “voting” scheme built into the protocol apparently.

The spec document itself basically just reimplements BGP with some quorum and peer verification added (current BGP is largely built on “trust me bro” authentication of AS numbers) and then QUIC, then sticks a pre-existing mesh networking solution on top, at least based on my very brief skim-read. It’s not clear how this is better than I2P, and it’s got a bunch of stupid crypto-blockchain shit in it, because for some reason they felt the need to implement payment in their replacement for HTTP.

What I’d want is a philosophy statement, it’s not clear what they’re trying to accomplish with this that isn’t already accomplished by I2P or Freenet (the former of which is going to be more robust than whatever this betanet shit is)

>>106198432
ok satan.

>>106198655
seems like a grift to me. some of these faggots truly believe if they just add "blockchain" to an idea then somehow the entire premise becomes more sellable to retards.

>>106197207 (OP)
buy an ad

>>106198655
>What I’d want is a philosophy statement
The closest you'll get his is bog standard virtue-signal of wanting it to be "anti-censorship," and make taking it down as difficult as hard-resetting the entire internet. I'm sure the Authority he's opposed to is really shaking in their boots. "Oh no, something we could easily do that would only benefit us, how could we ever!"

>>106198725
>e Authority he's opposed to is really shaking in their boots.
and people just stick to using tor/i2p/freenet etc. because they know it works. you can only reinvent the wheel so many times. adding "blockchain" to the discussion clearly doesn't work for these freaks.

>>106197776
>>106197786
>>106198020
>>106198029
>>106197207 (OP)
All me btw

>>106197776
This was the vibe I got as well, and I hear the talk of 'ecash' and 'voting' it was a redflag. He barely explains it, which in no way helps his cause, regardless if he's being vague intentionally and "you're just not haxxor enough to understand it" type shit.

Like Im all for the idea, but it's gotta work, and if it involves actual money transactions, then it's very obv. vulnerable despite his claims. If I really don't understand what he meant by 'ecash' etc., then that's his fault for not explaining it.
seems super duper sus, also it just sounds like malware with web3 shite.

>>106198039
meds