EOS Voice vs Steem?
EOS Voice?
EOS Voice is entering into the competition with Steem, Facebook, Kik and others. EOS Voice seems to be what Dan Larimer was calling Steem 2.0? If it is Steem 2.0 what will happen to Steem?
At the end of the day it's going to depend on which community grows fastest and which economy is superior. At this point in time we cannot know that yet. Facebook for example could come out with a token and begin rewarding users. If Facebook does this and also gives the illusion of privacy then it is going to be very difficult for EOS Voice or Steemit.
On the other hand Facebook doesn't go far enough then it leaves things wide open for the competition such as Steem or EOS Voice. I intend to try EOS Voice because if Dan Larimer is involved that is reason enough to give the platform a chance. As for Facebook most of us already are stuck using Facebook but when better platforms catch up in terms of influence then we will be free from Facebook and can delete our accounts.
There are some privacy flaws in my opinion. In my opinion data markets where the user has technical control of the use of their data is superior to putting all data in public on the blockchain to be away from the absolute ownership and control of the user. This is an area where I make a valuable distinction where I cannot say Steem or EOS Voice will provide greater privacy than Facebook. In actuality if all the data is in plain text on the blockchain then it could be far less privacy than to have it stored centralized on Facebook. Only if the data is encrypted and unusable without permission does it maintain maximum privacy and also be sellable. This is an area worthy of additional discussion as technical means do exist (homomorphic encryption etc) to allow for more nuanced approaches if there is demand for it.
Its a multistep KYC aka proof-of-life, the wallet code is open and already up. Yesterday there was an interview of Dan and he explained that its not about knowing the person, but knowing that there is one person behind multiple accounts. There will be also the possibility to anonymously interact with the blockchain. You can also have multiple accounts. E.g if you have a business. But you cant benefit from UBI and this is only fair. The UBI and the voting is for users.
Voice is not only a front-end. You can also implement it into blogs and websites. Steem needs to know its unique selling point.
Exactly. This is a common misunderstanding. What they have done is create a system that takes the biometric information etc. of a person and calculates a unique hash of that data. If the same person tries to use another identity, there will be a mismatch between the biometric data and other data. If they try to use the exact same data, the system will know that that particular hash is already tied to a certain account.
great explanation. I think this is in a few sentences, how we can >>maybe?<< solve the problems Steem has.
I should add that they have to calculate several hashes, each from the different parts of the multi-layered identification system.
Just for clarity, I think trusting that system is another thing. If it's open source, it can be verified to do just that. But if it's not, there is no telling whether or not it is going to harvest sensitive personal data.
the new EOSIO Reference Authenticator is open source and the code is now on git-hub. AFAIK they use face lock but I guess one can combine all possible inputs.
The crypto-hardware in smart devices and wallets like the secure enclave processor is closed-source and it's in the best interest to the chip company (ARM) or the smartphone company that there is no leak.
It can be done decentralized with homomorphic encryption etc but there is great risk to adding your biometric data to any blockchain in an unencrypted or even encrypted form. Do we know the code is reliable enough or that the SGX or secure execution environment is that safe?
I'm not saying I would not use it but I would proceed with the same caution that I would with a centralized exchange.
You're right about the need for caution. If only a hash of the data is saved on chain, then it should be safe. I wouldn't want my fingerprints or personal data on any blockchain, encrypted or not. A hash of my fingerprint data, yes, provided that it the hash function would be good enough.
Of course, that code needs to be checked to see that it does what it is supposed to.
When something is hashed with sha256 and your unconfortable, this is just your preference being unconfortable, because 2^256 possible combinations means an attacker has to try as man combinations as the earth has grains of sand on its beaches and deserts and if those grains of sand would be earthes itself with grains of sand on it and you sum up all the grains, than you have the amount of cominations.The probability to get a collusion is zero.
Most of us have given away their identity (real identity not just a biometric) for an steemit account. At least here i n Europe due to "anti-terror regulations" your phone number is associated with your full ID. And this phone number is saved on the server of steemit.inc.
It's more complex than that. The challenge of cryptography actually isn't and never has been simply developing unbreakable codes by way of theoretically (or practically) proven algorithms. The problem is who and what can you trust to properly implement those algorithms to specification? Cryptography has to be used not merely be a pretty algorithm on a chalkboard somewhere.
The US Military does not trust random chip makers in China. The Department of Defense for example relies on the Trusted Foundry Program which are a list of trusted hardware suppliers. People in the crypto community in my opinion naively seem to think that because something is "decentralized" that it automatically makes it more trustworthy. I have seen people for example mention that they don't trust the secure execution environment but then these same people may in fact then trust some random programmers writing smart contracts in a new programming language like Solidity or a notoriously difficult to check programming language like C++.
As much as I like EOS and do tend to trust the majority of the code the simply fact is that if you are using EOS Voice it is because you trust the judgment of Dan Larimer and the team of programmers he is leading. How much should you trust these programmers? To be honest in the crypto community I would say that Dan Larimer and his team of programmers are more trustworthy than most but then there is always a limit to how much trust you can give to any untested source code.
Biometrics are notoriously high risk information to upload for a variety of reasons. There are some good reasons why people don't want to attach their biometric data to a blockchain even if somehow it's done via homomorphic encryption or is done as a hash. I think when you refer to hash you are referring to the hash table approach to doing it which I'm familiar with as a general approach but there are many possible ways to do it.
The fact is, this is very sensitive information, and I'm not entirely sure right now that I could sign off on the implementation. I have to learn more. I'm not someone who is against using biometrics as I've been looking at this since speaking about the Enigma Protocol years ago on Steemit but I also know it's going to be hard to do (because I gave it much thought myself).
Where is the biometric data stored and how? There is risk here.
I don't think the data itself even needs to be stored, only a hash of it. Or hashes of its separate parts.
There are many ways to do it but for the most part doing this safely is going to be a major technical challenge. It is not trivial. If they pull it off then we all can learn something.
One thing that concerns me about it is whether or not the developers have anticipated the potential introduction of vastly more powerful computing architectures than what we have today. For instance, what if large scale quantum computers because feasible in the next 20 years? Would be it be realistic to think that the biometric data stored by Voice could be cracked using quantum computers?
I think brute force is the least likely approach to cracking algorithms if they choose the right ones. I think it is more likely statistically that you'll see a hardware failure or developer failure than some brute force cracking even if there is 30 or 50 years effort. But this is just my opinion.
In this case I have to reserve judgment until I see the code and use the platform. If they can strike the perfect balance then they could beat Facebook and Steem. Steem is dangerously transparent and Facebook is dangerously centralized.
In that case maybe it can work based on what you say. I think it's a problem if people cannot speak off the record. If people can speak off the record then all the problems I mention in my posts can be resolved by that capability.
The only way to have free speech is to give people an ability to communicate off the record.
Listen to the announcement by Dan. They are not trying to make Voice private per se. In fact, every user must be identified in order to have an account. There will likely be some privacy between users, but the point is they are making a social site where every user is real. No bots, no fake accounts, not misrepresentation. A site where people will be accountable for what they say. This will drive real conversations and reduce the fraud and prevent manipulation/abuse of those who would post false information to sway individuals. Free speech, but authenticated to establish a backing of responsibility for truth.
That is what I got from the announcement event replay-video.
Right, it has a function but it's not going to be the go to social media for the intimate or personal settings because it's public. This limits it's potential to grow.
In other words, on the record official business. This is limited though precisely for that reason because how much of communication between people is designated for maximum accountability?
Great for interviews. Great for business. Great for journalism. Great for politicians. But the majority of millennial communications I highly doubt will be in these categories.
I don't know if the conversations will be real. Accountable does not mean real. Accountable is merely that which is considered "on the record". There is for sure a place for this style of communication but I think the mistake you are making and many others is to assume this is the primary mode that humans communicate (historically). It's actually not the primary mode of communication which is precisely why WhatsApp, Snapchat, Telegram, are gaining in popularity.
I don't believe "free speech" can exist if there is an optimization for max accountability. You cannot say what you say. To simplify: You have to say that which you'll be least punished for saying. This isn't what most people think of when they think of "free speech" unless we also believe people in China under the social credit system have free speech as well.
I think it is a mistake (critical mistake) to market this sort of platform as being "free speech" friendly. It's not going to be there and I'll put myself on record for expressing the opinion that it cannot be considered that.
This is not to say that I'm saying we necessarily want to have free speech or that we should put emphasis on privacy but more to say that there is no such thing as "free speech" as a concept if there is no private communication. I'm putting forth the philosophical argument that only private speech (that which is optimized for minimum accountability) is considered to be "free" in the sense that the people communicating are allowed to communicate exactly what they really think or feel.
In interest in being balanced I think we have to be honest with the readers and admit that on a platform under this model they will have to watch what they say. It's in the interest of minimizing the damage people could cause to themselves. While your angle you present is in the interest is in minimizing the damage people cause to others (fraud, bullying, etc).
Voice looks like its more about tackling marginalized voices and appealing to the social side than the actual reward side. Steemit is basically just seen as a content tipping platform. From what ive read and heard it will be closer to a minds style site
You mean Voice is seen as a content tipping platform? Steemit and the rest are DApps for mining STEEM, SBD and Vests through Proof-of-Brain.
I don't consider blogging the be-all and end-all of Steem. It was the first application to use the Steem blockchain. Its main value lies in spreading the token, which is a must in order to guarantee sufficient decentralization to make this DPoS chain secure. In the future there will be an even greater array of Steem DApps for a large variety of purposes. Most of the value will come from high-traffic apps where most of the content is of "low quality" but seen, in total, by a large number of people. A pretty large proportion of future content will be digital assets such as those used in games.
I agree with what you’re saying and that’s the way steem hopefully will go and more dapps come on board to make the ecosystem worth while!
Blogging was a a great first start just to give people an idea of what’s possible like you said not the be all and end all!!
Not everyone wants to blog some of us are content consumers, or gamers or casual gamers or have other interested like fitness that can be added in here in unique ways
For example I’ve really enjoyed seeing the growth of steem monsters and I’m hoping to see more projects like these!
Posted using Partiko iOS
From what I can see of voice it might be good for journalists but without the reward side it offers no advanced from what I can see over what already exists? What is it that you see?
You didn't ask me but what I see going for it is the ability to monetize attention through endorsements. Once you done well on the platform and amassed a lot of VOICE tokens, you'll be able to sell your potential for attention. It sounds like the idea is to monetize attention off-chain on the fiat side.
I seriously think Steem and EOS Voice need to work together. Facebook is a serious threat to not just Steem and EOS Voice plans but possibly to Bitcoin depending on what Facebook does. They are working on this GlobalCoin thing which I think a lot of people who should know better are completely underestimating them on.
Do not under estimate Facebook. They are launching this month and I don't think it's any accident that they launch at the same month that EOS Voice is announced.
That's an awfully zero-summish approach. What exactly is the terrible thing that can happen to Steem when Facebook launches it's much touted stablecoin called GlobalCoin?
Bitcoin's use case is to act as both a money transmission system and as a store of value as in digital gold. Bitcoin's entire value proposition is its decentralization. It lies outside the control of governments and central banks and their corrupting influence. Facebook seems to want to ride on the coat tails of the crypto movement probably because the younger generations are abandoning Facebook. By introding GlobalCoin it becomes a money transmitter and probably will be successful at that. At the same time, by branding its product as a cryptocurrency, it legitimizes the entire space in the eyes of billions of people. If anything, Facebook's GlobalCoin is bullish for the crypto space.
A VOICE/STEEM trading pair could be built on Steem-Engine. What comes to your mind?
I hope Steemit Inc realizes it needs to put more focus on the front-end and bring it up-to-date. In the end it's about users and users care more about the UX than about the fancy back-end technology called "blockchain"
Posted using Partiko Android
Indeed, which is why I really like using steempeak they really listen to their community and have added some great featues. If anything steemits front end lags far behind other dapps on this chain nevermind competitor sites
It's not the job of Steemit Inc to do that. If people are unhappy with Steemit, then they can use SteemPeak, which in my opinion, is a better UI than Steemit. There are other blogging interfaces and interfaces for completely different purposes, too. What we need to do is help people make the distinction between Steem, Steemit Inc, and Steemit.
Blogging apps on Steem, Voice on EOS and Facebook are very different kinds of animals. Steemit et al. and Voice are tiny compared to the likes of Facebook. Steem and EOS can host a large variety of different kinds of apps for very different use cases. Facebook has many use cases, too, but for most people it is for maintaining connection with friends and acquaintances. You can advertise and promote and Facebook also has a market place. It has groups. But it's not easy to publish anything to the world on Facebook. Nor is it very useful for blogging. Facebook is hardly a gaming platform, either, like Steem and EOS already are.
I may start using Voice but for one purpose only: shilling Steem. :)
Implementing downvoting is the biggest opportunity for SNAX and Voice.
SNAX?
yes, I am earning more SNAX than Steem when I post on Steem, so I don't care if I am down voted
http://snax.one
I hope nextgencrypto and themarkymark get stuck forever in Steemit 1.0 so that the rest of us can move on in the Voice