this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
55 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37702 readers
482 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Researchers from several institutes worldwide recently developed Quarks, a new, decentralized messaging network based on blockchain technology. Their proposed system could overcome the limitations of most commonly used messaging platforms, allowing users to retain control over their personal data and other information they share online.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] regalia@literature.cafe 25 points 1 year ago (19 children)

Fuck no. What is better is p2p, or federated. No Blockchain is needed, and this is one of those examples where Blockchain is jammed into something where it really doesn't need to be, nor should it be. The last thing we want is for our encrypted messages be permanently stored. Element is federated, and they're working on getting it to be p2p. Some nerd will probably mention XMPP too.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (18 children)

I disagree here. with p2p/federated you have to worry about if your microprovider goes out. I think blockchain would be a useful way to keep a users preferences and to keep usernames distinct.

[–] amki@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Same thing with centralised services only that you have no options to choose from

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)