It doesn't mean actually, "store thousands of messages, posts, and photos literally 'on' the blockchain" because that would get ridiculously unwieldy.
So maybe it means, "store pointers to the above-mentioned data within a blockchain," which makes for a plausible organizing principle but doesn't actually do any storage (for which you'd still need technology and a business model to support it).
I'm only a little bit being snarky here: is there a deeper / more robust meaning to the shorthand of "we can store [some kind of rich, lots-of-bits] data 'on the blockchain'" that isn't clear to the dilettante?
Another possible solution is something like Torrent, not everyone needs to have a replication of every single file - it's spread out but decentralised enough.
And then a non blockchain solution to this is: https://tent.io/ which from what I understand is more similar to an email protocol for social networks.
I didn't go into too much depth in any of the points. I am not super invested in this space, nor up to date completely. It's just been an interest of mine since 2012 and i've been also trying to come up with real life use cases that blockchain could solve well.
There is literally nothing about blockchain that would inherently do this. that is entirely on the payment processor.
"That was solved by banks and cash, but blockchain can be another solution that doesn't require an insane amount of infrastructure, employees, call centers, etc to run."
This is quite false; bitcoin requires a very large infrastructure with incredible energy costs to run.
"6. I think voting is something that could happen on the blockchain. Boom, now anyone can verify the results of the election. People can't as easily scream election fraud."
But now my boss can verify who I voted for. So can the mafia.
"voting ... on the blockchain" This just sounds like the hype that parent was talking about.
Maybe all of this means something in your head, but the way it reads is the same as when companies file patents for "Doing ${THING}, but on the internet", as if that categorically changes the thing.
"Open APIs", backing and sharing data is all possible without Blockchain.
> 2.
The problem with contracts isn't contract itself, but the humans involved. Instead of having a lawyer write a contract, instead you'll have Smart Lawyers write Smart Contracts.
> 3.
Ok, sure. I would like to see what this is in practice though. The reason payment processors don't like dealing with adult industries is due to the higher rate of fraud and/or chargebacks, things like that. Either processors involved would be affected by the same things, or consumers would have to forgo things like fraud prevention and protection.
> 4.
Stackoverflow data is Creative Commons. If those sites go down we wouldn't loose the information. This is not a real problem.
> 5.
You detailed yourself why this isn't actually a problem solved.
> 6.
How? You can't just say "voting, but on the blockchain" and leave it at that. Wouldn't a voting-only blockchain would be susceptible to 51% attacks?
What is a "smart contract" and how would this contract be aware of legal requirements?
Even if we put aside the problem of unstable valuation, forks, and potential total collapse of cryptocurrencies, you're going to face the challenge of keeping a private key secure for however many years you plan to escrow the money.
Compared to creating a trust account, this is insanely risky - you'd have to be convinced that the legal and banking systems were facing imminent catastrophic collapse to think that's better than what we've got.
Edit: What's funny about that thread is that it's someone asking for help to get a contract written (...like you do when you see a lawyer), and there's supposedly (or not, unsure about the sarcasm) a venerability in the contract itself.
1. Imagine you use FB. Instead of FB having all of your data, it's stored on the blockchain (encrypted). The problem we have now is if a new social network comes along if you create an account you lose all of your previous data (which may or may not be what you want). This would let you easily bring in any old data that you want.
2. I want to transfer funds/ownership or whatever to someone in X number of years. Instead of going through a lawyer, paying money, I make this a smart contract.
3. Right now most payment processors do not work with adult industries and the ones that do charge exorbitant fees. Blockchain can bring those fees down a lot and let performers keep a lot more of their money.
4. We rely on sites like stackoverflow and what not. If those sites were to go down we would lose all of that information (if it wasn't archived). If that was run on the blockchain as long as a few people were still using the site it could stay running.
5. It's also just a solution to the problem of "send money to someone". That was solved by banks and cash, but blockchain can be another solution that doesn't require an insane amount of infrastructure, employees, call centers, etc to run. Ya, it creates its own set of problems (no chargebacks, still may need escrow services, etc) but maybe those can be run more efficiently than our current system.
6. I think voting is something that could happen on the blockchain. Boom, now anyone can verify the results of the election. People can't as easily scream election fraud.