Im wondering, will ICP be able to eleminate some of the GDPR we are struggeling to follow now a days ? I mean on ICP you can for sure say its safely stored right ?
I find it questionable, almost a bit counter intuitive to speak of a P2P network which usually has no central entity of control - that's why you pick this network topology but ICP having a more or less central authority that allows new peers to join the network. Why isn't the network open for anyone to join like other blockchains, is it because of unsolved attack vectors or why do they need this barrier of entry? On top of it, why do they need to KYC them? Is that because of regulatory reasons... A lot of it speaks quite against the philosophy of blockchain technologies which were designed as open system for people to use and join as they prefer.
Anyone (with the capital to buy the machine that meets the specs) can apply to be a node provider. The nns is a DAO. Anyone who staked icp is a voting member with voting power proportional to how much they staked. Dfinity is the biggest staker ~20% of the voting power but their share is shrinking. If your issue is that you cant run a node on a rasberry pi or whatever then yes, the requirements are higher than that, because this network is way more than just a ledger.
@@db-zf3zc My point isn't so much about the hardware specs of running a node and more so the fact that someone can end up spending a large amount of money for the hardware and still get denied access to the network since it's not open.
Yeah, definitely agree with you on this. Ultimately, IMO I think it all comes down to social consensus. The difference is really embedding social consensus directly into the protocol, where other blockchains have social consensus offchain. Code is law... until its not. You can't change Bitcoin code, but you can change social consensus. So if that's the case, why not put social consensus directly into the protocol. Bitcoin launched over a decade ago, and the "philosophy of blockchain" isn't exactly true in practice. I think that whether the network is open for anyone or not is highly debatable. You can't just join the Bitcoin network. You can't just "participate" into the Bitcoin network. Sure, you can argue anybody can download a fullnode and join the network. But that's not true in practice. Not everyone can simply join the network and participate in processing transactions. The flywheel effect to get Bitcoin rolling is both a miracle, but also its curse. In the past what you speak of is one reason I stayed away from ICP, but as you watch the crypto industry evolve and pay attention to all the bits and pieces, you start to appreciate Dfinity's approach. The original philosophy that started with Bitcoin has been abstracted away in a lot of ways. The second top crypto, Ethereum, did an ICO. Ethereum further abstracted "proof of work" and moved to "proof of stake". Bitcoin hashpower is consolidating into big pools. Source of truth on Ethereum is consolidating into big RPC providers. You could argue that you can choose a different RPC or use your own, but what happens as ecosystems choose top providers via social consensus? You can't just spinup your own RPC and expect people to trust you. Whatabout Ethereum staking pools? In a lot of ways, Bitcoin and many "permissionless blockchains" being permissioned or not is the same as ICP being permissioned or not, especially at scale (Bitcoin and Ethereum are prime examples). It's all a matter of framing.
Great video... Keep the series going!
Fair enough.#ICP
ICP😇World Computer
Im wondering, will ICP be able to eleminate some of the GDPR we are struggeling to follow now a days ? I mean on ICP you can for sure say its safely stored right ?
Think it is the only blockchain that has an EU only Subnet.
I find it questionable, almost a bit counter intuitive to speak of a P2P network which usually has no central entity of control - that's why you pick this network
topology but ICP having a more or less central authority that allows new peers to join the network.
Why isn't the network open for anyone to join like other blockchains, is it because of unsolved attack vectors or why do they need this barrier of entry?
On top of it, why do they need to KYC them? Is that because of regulatory reasons...
A lot of it speaks quite against the philosophy of blockchain technologies which were designed as open system for people to use and join as they prefer.
Anyone (with the capital to buy the machine that meets the specs) can apply to be a node provider. The nns is a DAO. Anyone who staked icp is a voting member with voting power proportional to how much they staked. Dfinity is the biggest staker ~20% of the voting power but their share is shrinking.
If your issue is that you cant run a node on a rasberry pi or whatever then yes, the requirements are higher than that, because this network is way more than just a ledger.
@@db-zf3zc My point isn't so much about the hardware specs of running a node and more so the fact that someone can end up spending a large amount of money for the hardware and still get denied access to the network since it's not open.
Yeah, definitely agree with you on this. Ultimately, IMO I think it all comes down to social consensus. The difference is really embedding social consensus directly into the protocol, where other blockchains have social consensus offchain. Code is law... until its not. You can't change Bitcoin code, but you can change social consensus. So if that's the case, why not put social consensus directly into the protocol. Bitcoin launched over a decade ago, and the "philosophy of blockchain" isn't exactly true in practice. I think that whether the network is open for anyone or not is highly debatable. You can't just join the Bitcoin network. You can't just "participate" into the Bitcoin network. Sure, you can argue anybody can download a fullnode and join the network. But that's not true in practice. Not everyone can simply join the network and participate in processing transactions. The flywheel effect to get Bitcoin rolling is both a miracle, but also its curse. In the past what you speak of is one reason I stayed away from ICP, but as you watch the crypto industry evolve and pay attention to all the bits and pieces, you start to appreciate Dfinity's approach. The original philosophy that started with Bitcoin has been abstracted away in a lot of ways. The second top crypto, Ethereum, did an ICO. Ethereum further abstracted "proof of work" and moved to "proof of stake". Bitcoin hashpower is consolidating into big pools. Source of truth on Ethereum is consolidating into big RPC providers. You could argue that you can choose a different RPC or use your own, but what happens as ecosystems choose top providers via social consensus? You can't just spinup your own RPC and expect people to trust you. Whatabout Ethereum staking pools? In a lot of ways, Bitcoin and many "permissionless blockchains" being permissioned or not is the same as ICP being permissioned or not, especially at scale (Bitcoin and Ethereum are prime examples). It's all a matter of framing.