Wayback Machine back in read-only mode after DDoS, may need further maintenance.

Wayback Machine back in read-only mode after DDoS, may need further maintenance.

  • Pasta DentalEnglish
    12•1 day ago

    To be fair that would not necessarily be because of the blockchain part, more because of the decentralized/federated nature of this theorical network

    • @[email protected]English
      23•1 day ago

      Sure, but the networking and consent-finding are defining features of a blockchain. Nobody calls a git repo a blockchain.

      • AlexanderESmith
        4•1 day ago

        You mean a “github repo”. Git by itself doesn’t give a hoot about validating authors what-so-ever (I could sign as “Bill Gates [email protected]”, and git would happily accept the commit), and it’s not federated (multiple people manually downloading various states of the repo at various times doesn’t count).

        Github ensures owners are who they are, as linked to their profile (though email validation only goes as far as “Well, they clicked the link in the email, so this must be their email account”). Github also isn’t federated, since that one site going down takes all the repos with it (unless someone had it cloned, but again, random people downloading at random times yields different states of the repo, depending on when the clone/fetch occured, but then you’d end up with tens/hundreds/thousands of sources of various levels of truth).

          • AlexanderESmith
            3•11 hours ago

            It’s not a minor nitpick. The comment was that “nobody calls a git repo a blockchain”. It’s because it’s not a blockchain, or even remotely similar to one.

            • chingaderaEnglish
              2•7 hours ago

              You are right, I was just poking fun a little. No hard feelings. You did just kind of um akshually my use of um akshually tho

        • @ValmondEnglish
          2•1 day ago

          Github is a website, controlled by no less than Microsoft lol.

          A git repo can be spread out like a “blockchain” without the messy validation and coin earnings, maybe that was the intended comparison?

          • AlexanderESmith
            2•11 hours ago

            Could it be? Sure, I don’t see a technological reason why someone couldn’t build a system like that.

            Are they now (federated, or blockchained)? No.

            • @ValmondEnglish
              1•2 hours ago

              True.

              I’m working on a decentralised sharing protocol, but it uses reciprocal sharing so you’d have to have large storage anyways.