I don't know what bitchain in; based on 30s on Google it seems to be Yet Another blockchain thingy. I will assume so below.
You might wish to take a look at namecoin, which is (was?) an attempt at doing DNS that way.
Note that blockchains don't magically solve consensus. They provide solutions under additional assumptions of a very weird shape (PoW ones' assumption is ~"no one can acquire as much as a third of the computational power we are burning", PoS ones' assumption is ~"no one can acquire a third of the tokens we are keeping track of ownership of").
So, whatever you do, the duality from my original comment applies: you either need global consensus (in the meaning of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_(computer_science)), or identifiers can't be freely chosen. (Otherwise you could impersonate a user by "just happening" to choose the identifier they are using. Preventing that is ~equivalent[1] to consensus.)
[1] "~" because I haven't thought enough to prove it
> I guess I see something like tor network for authentication.
I don't understand how. Tor establishes short-lived circuits. There are (by intent!) no long-term identities anywhere.
You might with to take a look at Secure Scuttlebutt. It implements the "hand the user a private key" approach.
Is the situation with replies that get boosted markedly different?
We still need to authenticate messages from the user. We can either have the handle be associated with a public key (and hand the user the private key), or with some sort of key trust system. In either case we need a mechanism that creates a trusted association of the handle with the key/... (imagine two users creating the same handle: how do we make it so that they don't impersonate one another?).
So, we need either handles that aren't chosen freely or global consensus.
Two obvious approaches, both with warts, are:
- handle _is_ the public key, private key is in user's hand (warts: loss of private key and its leak are both unfixable, handles are meaningless gobbledygook),
- hang handle->public key assignment off a global CA system: TLS CAs (warts: we require intermediaries who own domains and who are trusted to act as the user, we can't switch between intermediaries without lasting cooperation of the previous one).
Do you see other approaches/classes of approaches?
Was bedeutet "Behördennummer"?
There is the annoying conflation of (at least) two things that an instance is: identity provider and community. If we could decouple those at least somewhat, one could imagine a setup where one could be a member of many instances. In that world instance choice is much easier ("identity provider" is not important ~at all, "community" is postponeable).
I wonder if there is a primitive that would allow us to protect inactive users (e.g. something like a "step" function that takes us from key_i to key_{i+1} that's sufficiently expensive etc. and a corresponding function that takes a ciphertext decryptable with key_i and makes a ciphertext decryptable with key_i+1 out of it without access to either).
They often don't display them, but have them on request. I think that in some areas that's a requirement (because the menu tells you about possible allergens in dishes).
@TindrasGrove @SwiftOnSecurity
Do you have a description of what exploded? (I'm surprised by explosions: _flow_ water heaters had failure modes of starting fires, but ~no way to create large enough pressure to explode. I'd rather expect fires and scalding.)
It's amusing what different sets of safety sensors are there in European and USAian furnaces.
In US, all such furnaces have a flame-out-of-bounds detector and often don't have a detector of chimney draft (or rather, detector of fume spillover from the chimney hood). In Europe, the exact opposite is the case normally. (TTBOMK these two sensors would usually both detect lack of smoke flow, because it causes the flame to get bent out of shape.)
This seems to suffer from the same problem that fast-math suffers from: you enable it for everyone, including all the libraries you use. Those might rely on the exact opposite state (as that's the default).
We have lots of possible heuristics. For example, a simple heuristic is "federate with instances if they contain a user that's followed by someone followed by one of our users" (i.e. at distance of <=2 in directed graph of follows).
Also, making it costly (applying moderation actions per ~everything-under-same-domain-registration) might be sufficient.
I'm not sure if you know about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Suffix_List. You could use it to figure out at which level you might want to "agggregate responsibility".
Doesn't 3 conflict with 4 and 5? I wouldn't personally tell someone that I see e.g. a close-up of cable, but rather that I see a cable.
What do you think about including (factual) information that does not exist in the image (e.g. that this is a still from movie X, or that this PCB is actually a power supply from device Y)?
I enjoy things around information theory (and data compression), complexity theory (and cryptography), read hard scifi, currently work on weird ML (we'll see how it goes), am somewhat literal minded and have approximate knowledge of random things. I like when statements have truth values, and when things can be described simply (which is not exactly the same as shortly) and yet have interesting properties.
I live in the largest city of Switzerland (and yet have cow and sheep pastures and a swimmable lake within a few hundred meters of my place :)). I speak Polish, English, German, and can understand simple Swiss German and French.
If in doubt, please err on the side of being direct with me. I very much appreciate when people tell me that I'm being inaccurate. I think that satisfying people's curiosity is the most important thing I could be doing (and usually enjoy doing it). I am normally terse in my writing and would appreciate requests to verbosify.
I appreciate it if my grammar or style is corrected (in any of the languages I use here).