Twister is amazing

[davedx]

Trademark infringement suit in 3... 2... 1...

[1714853062]

1714853062

[1714853062]

1714853062

[1714853062]

1714853062

[bluemeanie1]

this is more elegant than retroshare. retroshare is lets put everything here. twister is next generation.

maybe you can specify some of these problems? i've been emailing the author, and he's a very competent coder.

I'm not here to do bug regressions for this person.

the concept just sort of glues together DHTs and Bitcoin-like Blockchains.  DHTs have a number of problems associated with them.  Also if he wants to use the Blockchain, there must be some clear incentive for the 'mining' function, in this case there is none(he does note this on his website).

Cool idea, but likely to break or be compromised if ever used in any significant capacity.  No one has explored attack vectors yet.

[bluemeanie1]

and btw- if this person wants recognition in this area, it might be a good idea to reference where there is precedent, in particular NameCoin.

-bm

[westkybitcoins]

Worth keeping an eye on, anyway.

[genjix]

you haven't really said anything of substance yet that i can try to address. i think dht scales much better than bitmessage.

and hand waving it away as just dht + blockchain is like handwaving away bitcoin as proof of work + signed timestamped messages. he's put a lot of thought into different use cases and built the primitives to support them (restype="single" or "multi"). and thought about scalability. i have confidence in this unless someone can tell me real problems.

[Altoidnerd]

Nice idea but like other people have said its a shame it looks/sounds so much like twitter.

In the founder's defense, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twisted_curves

[amincd]

Twitter doesn't have a trademark on the letters "T-W-I". 'Twister' with a picture of a tornado is its own concept, and very distinct from the bird 'tweets' that the 'Twitter' brand is based on. The layout otoh..

[empoweoqwj]

Interesting concept. Do you have a twitter account where I could keep up to date about it?

[hilariousandco]

Interesting concept. Do you have a twitter account where I could keep up to date about it?

Haha. If they do they probably wont have it for long  .

[marcus_of_augustus]

Natively secure p2p messaging with low overheads ... this has much promise.

e.g. I can envisage a distributed exchange using elements of this ...

[teukon]

Hmm...

I'm not sure about the promoted messages.  If twister ends up being as decentralised as Bitcoin then there would be nothing to stop someone taking the code, snipping out the promoted messages, and providing an ad-block experience.  Mining incentive might well reduce to donations (maybe that's enough).  I'd prefer to see a more robust incentive mechanism, particularly given that a successful service will require more data storage than Bitcoin.

Also, I can see that the messages will be secure but don't see resistance to meta-data tracking (please correct me if this is addressed).

[coinrevo]

the concept just sort of glues together DHTs and Bitcoin-like Blockchains.  DHTs have a number of problems associated with them.  Also if he wants to use the Blockchain, there must be some clear incentive for the 'mining' function, in this case there is none(he does note this on his website).

Cool idea, but likely to break or be compromised if ever used in any significant capacity.  No one has explored attack vectors yet.

I very much agree with these statements. This can not possibly scale even up to smallish numbers. Actually its the same reason exchanges can not be distributed. The blockchain can't be used for time-ordered messaging. Transactions in the chain are not ordered. The order of transactions in one block does not matter. However, order of messages in communication does matter. If in a thread one post comes later than another but refers to ts hat post, order is not preserved. So a conversation (i.e. message B is a reply to message A) is not possible, because order is needed.

I think there is generally not a good understanding of what can be done with the blockchain in principle. The most interesting application by far is namecoin. The reason is that the cycle of messages is much longer. You reserve a name and this stays constant for say 12 months. I find it also interesting in that a domain name really is a link to a server, operated by a person or organization. If you think about it a corporation is really not much else. Twitter is a set of people tied to the services of Twitter Inc, a completely fictitious entity. There is no reason we could have much better legal frameworks. For example most multi-nationals avoid taxes completely with various schemes, corrupt governments, hand over information to power groups etc.etc.

[empoweoqwj]

the concept just sort of glues together DHTs and Bitcoin-like Blockchains.  DHTs have a number of problems associated with them.  Also if he wants to use the Blockchain, there must be some clear incentive for the 'mining' function, in this case there is none(he does note this on his website).

Cool idea, but likely to break or be compromised if ever used in any significant capacity.  No one has explored attack vectors yet.

I very much agree with these statements. This can not possibly scale even up to smallish numbers. Actually its the same reason exchanges can not be distributed. The blockchain can't be used for time-ordered messaging. Transactions in the chain are not ordered. The order of transactions in one block does not matter. However, order of messages in communication does matter. If in a thread one post comes later than another but refers to ts hat post, order is not preserved. So a conversation (i.e. message B is a reply to message A) is not possible, because order is needed.

I think there is generally not a good understanding of what can be done with the blockchain in principle. The most interesting application by far is namecoin. The reason is that the cycle of messages is much longer. You reserve a name and this stays constant for say 12 months. I find it also interesting in that a domain name really is a link to a server, operated by a person or organization. If you think about it a corporation is really not much else. Twitter is a set of people tied to the services of Twitter Inc, a completely fictitious entity. There is no reason we could have much better legal frameworks. For example most multi-nationals avoid taxes completely with various schemes, corrupt governments, hand over information to power groups etc.etc.

Didn't namecoin "blow up" for some reason? There was some bad news last month about it, just can't remember exactly what it was.

[sickpig]

the concept just sort of glues together DHTs and Bitcoin-like Blockchains.  DHTs have a number of problems associated with them.  Also if he wants to use the Blockchain, there must be some clear incentive for the 'mining' function, in this case there is none(he does note this on his website).

Cool idea, but likely to break or be compromised if ever used in any significant capacity.  No one has explored attack vectors yet.

I very much agree with these statements. This can not possibly scale even up to smallish numbers. Actually its the same reason exchanges can not be distributed. The blockchain can't be used for time-ordered messaging. Transactions in the chain are not ordered. The order of transactions in one block does not matter. However, order of messages in communication does matter. If in a thread one post comes later than another but refers to ts hat post, order is not preserved. So a conversation (i.e. message B is a reply to message A) is not possible, because order is needed.

I think there is generally not a good understanding of what can be done with the blockchain in principle. The most interesting application by far is namecoin. The reason is that the cycle of messages is much longer. You reserve a name and this stays constant for say 12 months. I find it also interesting in that a domain name really is a link to a server, operated by a person or organization. If you think about it a corporation is really not much else. Twitter is a set of people tied to the services of Twitter Inc, a completely fictitious entity. There is no reason we could have much better legal frameworks. For example most multi-nationals avoid taxes completely with various schemes, corrupt governments, hand over information to power groups etc.etc.

Didn't namecoin "blow up" for some reason? There was some bad news last month about it, just can't remember exactly what it was.

you're right. There was a serious bug, in the beginning the current maintainer thought it was unfixable. Eventually he and the community found a solution and fixed the problem. At the moment on the exchange platform that I commonly use 1 NMC values is 7.71$.
 

[bluemeanie1]

the concept just sort of glues together DHTs and Bitcoin-like Blockchains.  DHTs have a number of problems associated with them.  Also if he wants to use the Blockchain, there must be some clear incentive for the 'mining' function, in this case there is none(he does note this on his website).

Cool idea, but likely to break or be compromised if ever used in any significant capacity.  No one has explored attack vectors yet.

I very much agree with these statements. This can not possibly scale even up to smallish numbers. Actually its the same reason exchanges can not be distributed. The blockchain can't be used for time-ordered messaging. Transactions in the chain are not ordered. The order of transactions in one block does not matter. However, order of messages in communication does matter. If in a thread one post comes later than another but refers to ts hat post, order is not preserved. So a conversation (i.e. message B is a reply to message A) is not possible, because order is needed.

I think there is generally not a good understanding of what can be done with the blockchain in principle. The most interesting application by far is namecoin. The reason is that the cycle of messages is much longer. You reserve a name and this stays constant for say 12 months. I find it also interesting in that a domain name really is a link to a server, operated by a person or organization. If you think about it a corporation is really not much else. Twitter is a set of people tied to the services of Twitter Inc, a completely fictitious entity. There is no reason we could have much better legal frameworks. For example most multi-nationals avoid taxes completely with various schemes, corrupt governments, hand over information to power groups etc.etc.

Exchanges can be, and will be, distributed.  Have a look at the whitepaper: http://www.altchain.org/?q=whitepapers/paper2.html

The algorithm is not the same as bitcoin.  It uses Confidence Chains.

also a more in depth discussion of these topics on Wilmott.org: http://www.wilmott.com/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid=95845&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=&STARTPAGE=4

[empoweoqwj]

the concept just sort of glues together DHTs and Bitcoin-like Blockchains.  DHTs have a number of problems associated with them.  Also if he wants to use the Blockchain, there must be some clear incentive for the 'mining' function, in this case there is none(he does note this on his website).

Cool idea, but likely to break or be compromised if ever used in any significant capacity.  No one has explored attack vectors yet.

I very much agree with these statements. This can not possibly scale even up to smallish numbers. Actually its the same reason exchanges can not be distributed. The blockchain can't be used for time-ordered messaging. Transactions in the chain are not ordered. The order of transactions in one block does not matter. However, order of messages in communication does matter. If in a thread one post comes later than another but refers to ts hat post, order is not preserved. So a conversation (i.e. message B is a reply to message A) is not possible, because order is needed.

I think there is generally not a good understanding of what can be done with the blockchain in principle. The most interesting application by far is namecoin. The reason is that the cycle of messages is much longer. You reserve a name and this stays constant for say 12 months. I find it also interesting in that a domain name really is a link to a server, operated by a person or organization. If you think about it a corporation is really not much else. Twitter is a set of people tied to the services of Twitter Inc, a completely fictitious entity. There is no reason we could have much better legal frameworks. For example most multi-nationals avoid taxes completely with various schemes, corrupt governments, hand over information to power groups etc.etc.

Didn't namecoin "blow up" for some reason? There was some bad news last month about it, just can't remember exactly what it was.

you're right. There was a serious bug, in the beginning the current maintainer thought it was unfixable. Eventually he and the community found a solution and fixed the problem. At the moment on the exchange platform that I commonly use 1 NMC values is 7.71$.
 

OK, thanks for filling me in. Good to see namecoin is alive and kicking

[pabloangello]

This is an amazing idea and guess what, the biggest brand names like Pepsi, Google, Bitcoin and several dozen more are already taken :p

[defaced]

The compiling is a bit tricky but the idea is awesome. This is how all websites could be constructed in the future.

[empoweoqwj]

The compiling is a bit tricky but the idea is awesome. This is how all future websites could be constructed in the future.

What do you mean by "compiling"?

[defaced]

The compiling is a bit tricky but the idea is awesome. This is how all future websites could be constructed in the future.

What do you mean by "compiling"?

http://twister.net.co/?page_id=23