[codespin]

I'm excited to try this out, I was toying with the idea of creating something similar.

I see a strong need for a microblogging framework where users have control of their data. Mastadon is great, but I think Zooko goes farther in the right direction.

[roywiggins]

This seems like a different definition of "control"- sure, your posts can't be deleted by anyone else, but they can't be deleted or edited by you. They are preserved and public forever.

I'm not sure that's what people think of when they think of having control of their data?

[macintux]

Seems analogous to the discussion of which licensing type gives the developer more freedom: GPL or BSD. The answer depends on how you define freedom.

[dannyw]

Yes, like it or not that's practically how the internet works.

You don't believe Facebook actually deletes your messages, do you?

[roywiggins]

Right. But that's what I mean by this thing not giving you "control over your data."

If I post something on Facebook and regret it, I have some control over it- sure, I can't delete it off Facebook's internal tape archives, but that's really going to be one of a handful of places it will stick around after I delete it.

If I embed something in plaintext on a blockchain it will be public, to everyone, forever. This seems like having less control, or at least no more control.

[magicjosh]

Interesting point about what "control" means. If I can put up a message that can never be taken down, is that control?

The case here is "yes", that's a certain type of control: the ability to put something up and never take it down. Kind of permissions on a disk where you can only write subsequent files but no one (including you) can delete old files. That is more control compared to someone who can write files but an admin can delete them.

[timeon]

But still, publish and lost control. No one has control now even the author.

Edit: my point is that it is control-less environment. So it is not answer to "where users do not have control of their data" problem.

[roywiggins]

If the solution that the blockchain offers is "oh, all your data is irreversibly public forever", then that's not a solution to the problem as commonly understood. For example, wikipedia describes the European GDPR like this: "The GDPR's primary aim is to enhance individuals' control and rights over their personal data" (emphasis mine).

If the GDPR (which regulates stuff around controlling who can even hold and retain data) is generally considered an attempt to enhance personal control over data, it seems to be using a totally different definition of control than one where it means "it's irreversibly public forever." A lot of blockchain projects seem to sell "control over data" when they mean the latter but allow people to believe it's the former.

[magicjosh]

Well said! I like how you spelled that out. "There are different elements of control, what's important for humans?"

[magicjosh]

This is a neat hack. I've always been curious about these type of "publish right on the block" schemes like the picture of Len Sassman or the Bitcoin whitepaper.

Bitcoin addresses are up to 35 characters, so you could think about doing something like this on the Bitcoin chain as well. Example: "zooko:hi hackernews".

In this case, my understanding is they're updating the TXT record of your Handshake address (at least that's how it could work on ENS, but that's on the Ethereum blockchain) rather than the block itself.

Has anyone had a chance to test it out?