Create account

jonald_fyookball
replied 2129d
devils advocate -- why do you need the blockchain for that?
replied 2129d
Don't have to reply on a central service or know the location of the other person. Also async - neither party has to be online simultaneously.
replied 2129d
We'll need a method to have each message sent to an unique address to obscure who you are communicating with.
Loomenaughty
replied 2128d
But ultimately wouldn’t you be paying the fees with a known address, tying everything back together?
im_uname
replied 2129d
You guys are reinventing encrypted decentralized chat services. Ring.cx already does this, no blockchain.
replied 2129d
If you don't get it, I don't have time to convince you, sorry.
homopit
replied 2129d
Is this you, Satoshi?

;)
Barricade
replied 2129d
Doing it on the blockchain has a few advantages (and disadvantages too, of course).
replied 2128d
lol, ring is as much decentralized as skype was in early years. you are comparing apples with oranges. Blockchain is far, far superior. It’s the innovation, DHT is not.
im_uname
replied 2128d
>Blockchain is far, far superior. It’s the innovation, DHT is not.

That is the most stupid thing I've heard this week.
replied 2127d
2/2 cause dht is only used for IP address look up, and actual conversation is p2p. That said, you can only communicate while online, which is uncompetitive.
replied 2127d
lol, elaborate no? I don’t think personal messages should be implemented on top of blockchain, but dht based messaging services don’t work well (1/2)
1DYD9Y8EomqBapvM
replied 2128d
Even for encrypted communication immutability and universal timestamps can be useful - for courts, including court of public opinion
replied 2129d
I'm glad memo replied, as my take would be a bit different.
Other than censorshipless & private communication, it allows more people to use BCH for on boarding.
Like a gateway drug.