Life after Google

I guess ‘blockchain’ is the only comfortable term that most of the public understand and recognise, so I’m not too upset crypto based internet or SAFENet wasn’t used.

We all know this article is about the SAFEnetwork project.



Ironically this video is only viewable via youtube, owned by google :wink:

“This is the google era, we live in it. The next step is to upload your mind into the google cloud, and I balk at it.”

" The delusions come next."

“It’s now 12 years since 2006, that Bell’s law regime of cloud computing, huge data centers all parked by bodies of water, is coming to an end.”

“Google is not just a company, it is a system of the world.”

“The fact is, security is not a video game. Security is an architecture.”

“The method of authenticating people to participate in internet transactions is bankrupt… and it is going to be replaced by the cryptocosm.”


This guy is delusional. Sure made a lot of money with that book though. :rofl:

Why would (or, how could) the Magical Blockchain be the answer to everything?

It’s the answer to a single problem, that of a public ledger without any trusted parties.

While it’s effective, it’s also insanely inefficient. Slow, limited bandwidth, huge storage and huge energy requirements. Some of those can be fixed in time but some are inherent to how it works.

Why would anybody in their right mind use it for anything other than where it’s unavoidable? We have RMDBs and cashes and hash tables and version control systems and freaking text files! We can authenticate and authorize using so many different protocols, all of which are more efficient than blockchain based methods.

By the way, this goes for the Safe Network as well. It’s going to be great for a lot of things, but some idiot will try to run a run his pacemaker on it eventually and the news will be full of condemning the Safe Network for demanding someone’s life…

I do agree we should (and can) solve a lot of things, but not “everything.”

I’ll give him credit where credit is due. Wrong about the product, but right about the vision. Considering the Hoover Institution, the age, etc., I’m left only thinking that these are positive data points. They’re 5 years behind the leading edge. So, they’re only partially correct in our timeline, but still, they’re starting to figure it out. They’re getting the philosophical and ethical debate right, finally. Baby steps.

1 Like