1. 17

    Very interesting, in a way I’m curious about how this will evolve, but the Ethereum integration is a huge turn-off.

    1. 5

      At the moment there is no Etherum integration at all. Down the road we are going to add entirely optional ways to benefit from the extra security, authenticity and coordination tooling backed by something like Etherum. All the code collaboration functionality will be unaffected by it and and at no point are users expected or required to use the optional features.

      1. 8

        Thank you for specifying that, that is exactly how I understood it and while I appreciate the optional integration, there is one planned and that for me makes this project very unattractive. Which I think is a shame, because the P2P aspect (alongside it being open-source, written in rust, having a very polished presentation) of it looks very good.

        1. 1

          Great to hear that the messaging on the website makes that clear. Out of curiosity what are the reasons for the strict rejection based on that optional feature set?

          1. 13

            I reject any blockchain-related project, because blockchain is wasting a huge amount of resources for absolutely no gain. Associating a project with it - even by making it optional - means you support the ideas behind blockchain, so I automatically can’t support the project.

            1. 6

              Ethereum is starting it’s PoS transition, stage zero, mainnet literally today, first of December. They are working hard to drop PoW.

              EDIT: Here is a launch event live stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD3mADL33wk

              EDIT2: Eth 2.0 beacon chain explorer: https://beaconcha.in/

              1. 3

                I have no idea what “Pos”, “stage zero”, “mainnet” means. I assume PoW doesn’t mean prisoner of war, but proof of work?

                1. 3

                  Proof of Stake, proof of work, mainnet = production. Stage zero - this new production network does create new blocks and mints validator rewards, but it is yet to be upgraded to network that can do proper transactions. Also, question of turning off PoW of Ethereum 1.0 is still not very clear. First two networks need to be merged into one.

                  1. 4

                    So regarding my argument that

                    blockchain is wasting a huge amount of resources for absolutely no gain

                    you are saying that they are taking care of the amount of resources consumed by lowering the energy consumption?

                    1. 3

                      They are making steps (just launched a first of series of network upgrades) on a road that will lead to PoW being fully replaced by PoS in Ethereum. So - yes. But it will take some time.

                      Please note that the costs of PoW are distributed onto every holder of cryptocurrency. And some of that cost is distributed on everyone else in a form CO2 emissions. They are offsetted by of carbon tax, but only in some of the countries where miners operate.

                      Everyone is interested in PoW becoming a thing of the past.

                      1. 1

                        At least that’s the long-term plan for Ethereum.

                        Bitcoin, for example, has no plans to move towards Proof of Stake. Neither do most other blockchain based cryptocurrencies.

                        1. 2

                          To me, “proof of work” feels a little like the internal combustion engine. It’s kind of dirty, and grew so big in our time that it needs huge amounts of power to continue to work (as in drilling for oil and fracking all the things to make cars go brrrr): it’s “what we have” (or “they” have, whatever) because for a while, every blockchain based cryptocurrency went for it.

                          Now, some people are not completely oblivious to how stupid this looks, and alternatives are slowly coming around (proof-of-stake for eth, consensus protocols for xlm, etc.). The future is looking brighter, but as for BTC it’s just too late: it’s expensive because it requires huge amounts of investments to exist and allow transactions.

                2. 3

                  Blockchain hype is pretty large source of free software funding that doesn’t corrupt the movement to serve a couple of oligarchs. Both offer freedom.

                  I am not fan of blockchain snake oil peddlers myself, but if they manage to convince a bunch of greedy, rich capitalists to lose some money on free software alternatives to the status quo, I am content.

                  Public smart contracts also incentivize research of formal methods, dependent typing and other methods to improve software correctness. Another great win.

                  1. 2

                    blockchain is wasting a huge amount of resources for absolutely no gain

                    As mentioned down-thread I think you mean “proof of work” and not “blockchain” here. Git repos use a merkle-tree block-chain just like Bitcoin, for example, and there’s no proof of work there.

                    I also think it’s ilkely you misunderstand the nature of “wasted resources” in a proof of work algorithm (blockchain related, or otherwise) but that’s a side issue here.

            2. 4

              This stance comes from a place of ignorance on how energy is generated and converted into proof-of-work. It’s a shame because blockchains are here to stay and will only grow in consumption. The majority of electricity in use by proof-of-work chains today comes from excess hydro energy. This is energy that was already harvested and would go to waste if it wasn’t used to secure bitcoin. There are today several large projects looking to do the same: make use of excess energy harvested by power plants, and turn them into money. There is really no need to create new energy to power cryptocurrencies. That, I agree is a waste, and completely unnecessary.

              1. 13

                Whoa, wait a minute. That’s like how I can buy the meat in the supermarket without being responsible for animals being slaughtered because the animals have already been slaughtered anyway, right? There’s no market involved here or anything.

                1. 3

                  There is really no need to create new energy to power cryptocurrencies. That, I agree is a waste, and completely unnecessary.

                  I know this rationale very well and I think truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes, mining is clearly a way to turn that excessive (in off-peak hours) energy into useful work. BUT! ATM any other, potentially more useful way of turning this energy into useful work needs to compete with miners. Potentially, that energy could create aluminum, fill water tanks, charge huge batteries, etc.

                  Also, the way demand supply/demand for hashing power works - in times of high prices of BTC (like now) people are likely to run miners everywhere, not just next to large power stations in off-peak hours.

              1. 6

                I’m really excited to check out this library. Unfortunately, mio has been completely rewritten for the next 0.7 release, removing major functionality in the process and making it unsuitable for several of its current usecases. In the next year I expect that mio 0.6 will be unmaintained, so a replacement is desperately needed.

                Aside: I’m also disappointed that I’m still getting bitten by the “pre-1.0 crates” issue, especially when the crate is the ~70th most downloaded in history.

                1. 3

                  Feel free to reach out with ideas/feedback. I developed it for a fairly narrow use-case, but interested in making it work for more people if I can.

                1. 3

                  I’d love to see some description of what use case scenarios are enabled/intended for this protocol, similar as in Secure Scuttlebutt. The article linked above would be interesting if I had more context, such that based on a background of “handwaved” use case scenarios, I could then dig down (through this article) to how exactly they’re implemented to understand the tradeoffs chosen.

                  1. 1

                    Thanks for your feedback. With this protocol, we are really trying to build most of the collaboration features available on GitHub (issues, prs, code browsing), but without reliance on a central third party. Radicle Link is fairly low-level, but the goal is for it to offer the primitives needed to build higher level “entities” such as issues, users, projects etc. on top of DVCSs. As we write about the other pieces of the puzzle, I think it will become clearer how it all fits together.

                    1. 1

                      I’m esp. interested in the “user scenarios” of the gossiping aspect a la Scuttlebutt - how could I share stuff with others if e.g. rarely being online & without the “pubs”/central nodes, how do I choose what gets “pushed” to others and how I choose what to download from others. Also stuff like identities, in Scuttlebutt there’s e.g. some limitation that “one device = one identity” IIUC, how do you approach this (same or differently).

                      OTOH, you mentioning code browsing is a good point, so I’m also curious how from user perspective this could work - both when browsing code of someone “I’m in room with” without Internet, as well as browsing some strangers repos on public Internet aided by “pub”/central helper servers. Also how do I discover who’s out there, I guess.

                      Finally, do you plan for it to be possible to somehow link to & browse repos from public Internet, via some kind of gateways, public servers, …, comercially- or self-hosted.

                      SSB have this “love story” high-level overview from user’s perspective - that’s e.g. a kind of narrative I’m very interested in as a “quick intro”, and a basis for then digging deeper into purely technical docs as the one linked in the OP. If that’s something you still have on your TODO list, I understand, will be waiting, hope I don’t miss the post :)