
Spore – Decentralized package manager on Ethereum and IPFS - jamesdwilson
https://github.com/mhhf/spore
======
rkeene2
AppFS ( [http://appfs.rkeene.org/](http://appfs.rkeene.org/) ) is exactly a
decentralized package manager, except it uses HTTP as a transport and does end
to end verification (i.e. not like HTTPS where only the transport is verified)
of all data using PKI.

------
nikolay
Can somebody ELI5 why we need Ethereum, too?

~~~
jamesdwilson
So you can program your program's program while you program

~~~
nikolay
I got it. Gx [0] looks simpler and better without the craptocurrency stuff.

[0]:
[https://github.com/whyrusleeping/gx](https://github.com/whyrusleeping/gx)

~~~
williamcotton

      $ gx import QmR5FHS9TpLbL9oYY8ZDR3A7UWcHTBawU1FJ6pu9SvTcPa
    

vs

    
    
      $ spore install mortal
    

This is a very important distinction that you gloss over when you use loaded
terms like "craptocurrency".

~~~
nikolay
Everything comes at a price. The first one is free and has a lot fewer
dependencies to be used and operate - no Chinese miners required!

~~~
williamcotton
Why do you want to go down the rabbit hole of economic externalities?

Do you realize the sorts of unnecessary energy that is wasted just to protect
the legal and financial infrastructure that even let's a company like npm
exist in the first place?

You're making it seem like only cryptocurrencies have a downside. The truth of
the matter is that there will always be a price to pay for state-making
functions and that we can't build npm-like things without these state-making
functions.

Cryptocurrencies might end up being one of the least wasteful manners in which
a group of people can come up with decentralized consensus.

Someone should do a study to compare the infrastructure required to support
storing and tracking all of the world's real estate property titles versus the
infrastructure of all the Chinese miners in the world. I'm willing to bet that
in kilowatt hours even the heavy-duty Bitcoin blockchain is much more
efficient.

~~~
nikolay
I don't have any interest in anything with a speculative value. Sorry, but
Bitcoin didn't make it - "the next big thing", i.e. Ethereum will not make it
either as people have zero interest in something that's at the mercy of low-
quality speculators. In this case, I really don't want my business to have
anything to do with a speculative technology. As I said, the only two
requirements are authenticity and immutability and you don't need Ethereum to
implement it.

~~~
williamcotton
Don't only think of it as having a speculative value. Think of it also as
having the utility of being able to write to an immutable public ledger. Think
of "Bitcoin the currency" as a commodity that lets you write to the Bitcoin
blockchain like how ink is a commodity that let's you write on paper.

You don't need to use much Bitcoin in order to secure a lot of data with a
timestamp and signature. This makes it great for synchronizing all sorts of
transactional data across service boundaries meaning people can bring their
ownership rights from provider to provider.

With something like keybase.io you're reliant on them to authorize the link
between a name and your public key. You're also reliant on the DNS system. All
of this adds unnecessary friction to the concept of individual ownership of
digital properties like domain names to say nothing of owning the rights to a
named module of published open source code.

The speculative value is what drives the mining process. It's a dirty little
trick and yes, it encourages a bunch of people near cheap hydro power to buy a
bunch of machines that do nothing other than play the SHA-256 lottery.

You can still have zero interest in the speculative value of Bitcoin. That's
the miners concerns.

Your concerns can just be the transactional fees that let you embed your own
data in the consensus ledger.

