Twitter | Search | |
Catoshi Feb 10
Sounds like a great idea if it can be done.
Reply Retweet Like
Jimmy Wales Feb 10
I don't understand what is being proposed.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Krawisz ⚡️ 🔑 Feb 10
I was just thinking about how you said you didn't like Bitcoin and imagining ways that it could be used to improve Wikipedia. More generally, Bitcoin can help any system to become more Byzantine fault tolerant:
Reply Retweet Like
Jimmy Wales Feb 10
But what specifically are you proposing?
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Krawisz ⚡️ 🔑 Feb 10
That you think more deeply about why Bitcoin is a good idea.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Krawisz ⚡️ 🔑 Feb 10
My point is just that because Bitcoin transactions always leave records, someone who uploaded illegal content would leave you with more contextual information that you could track on the blockchain than you would have if there weren't payments associated with their interactions.
Reply Retweet Like
Jimmy Wales Feb 10
That isn't how blockchain works. That suggestion - to force people to strongly identify and pay for the privilege of editing Wikipedia - is a bad idea independently. And ot would be easy and cheap to implement without blockchain.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Krawisz ⚡️ 🔑 Feb 10
People don't need to strongly identify. Peoples' names aren't attached to their txs in public. Rather, you can use the information in the blockchain to link together other events once all information about them comes together somewhere, as in a police investigation.
Reply Retweet Like
Jimmy Wales Feb 10
We already store data. In a database. It works well.
Reply Retweet Like
BSV KING Feb 10
Wikipedia has grown to the point where it's really so important that the database is going to need to be WORM compliant so records can't be changed and editors can be encouraged to be more responsible. This would make inserting false info more expensive & increase trust.
Reply Retweet Like
Jimmy Wales
It is really important that records can be changed. Removing that feature would be bad.
Reply Retweet Like More
Daniel Krawisz ⚡️ 🔑 Feb 10
Hey Jimmy is it true that you like F. A. Hayek? What do you think is the most important thing he said?
Reply Retweet Like
Jimmy Wales Feb 10
This essay has been enormously influential to my thinking:
Reply Retweet Like
Kurt Wuckert Jr Feb 10
Respectfully, bitcoin-powered databases do allow simple changes. The changes just happen in such a way where the history cannot be censored. For example, powerful people cannot whitewash their pasts with bribery/threats. This fundamentally strengthens incentives to be "good."
Reply Retweet Like
Jimmy Wales Feb 10
An immutable public record would be a great tempting target for harrassment and abuse.
Reply Retweet Like
BSV KING Feb 10
Sure, you can have both, you update the database but there is a record it was changed. The nature is that it is both transparent and private & access can be controlled with many different techniques. Would like to hear you talk to Craig about it and hear his thoughts.
Reply Retweet Like
BSV KING Feb 10
Additionally, I want Craig to hear your thoughts as well. As a skeptic you need real reasons to adopt this sort of technology, and it needs to be practical and save money. It is important to hear from people who have opposing views.
Reply Retweet Like
Ashish Anand Feb 12
Hope your editors agree with you. They don’t allow to change entry for Whrrl, a startup that shut down 9 years back Compare that to google first page search result for our alive & kicking startup Whrrl i.e.,
Reply Retweet Like
CJ Feb 12
You need to start a new page with a disambiguation attached
Reply Retweet Like
Eli Afram Feb 12
This is rev control. Records change all the time with Bitcoin.
Reply Retweet Like
Jin Chan 🌷 Feb 10
Yes you can change/"update". There are no limits.
Reply Retweet Like