Amen. At the end of the day, a tool is used for what it can accomplish—whether it was a goal, or not.

Sorry about the marketing speak, I read it again and it does sound cheesy and I updated to tone it down. It still sounds a bit cheesy but I had to explain it that way to make my point.

Because the goal is not to lower hosting costs and avoid DDoS, but to create a data structure that can be routed around in a trustless manner (by double signing the HTTP requests and encapsulating in an offchain Bitcoin transaction format with unique SHA256 hash ids for secure synchronization), it's solving a completely different problem. The features were derived from this goal.

You only know that the connection has not been MITM if you have actually identified that the public keys that you want to use or trust that they are correct due to a WoT (e.g. they are signed by a CA your OS trusts or GPG WoT).

2 identities knowing data came from each other due to the properties of public key encryption. Is this a good summary? For which use cases should this property come in handy?

Yeah it took me a while to figure out this is what’s going on, I don’t understand why it was tossed in a word salad.

Steve Jobs disagrees.

If Steve Jobs ever used "benefit decentralization" as a noun, he would have cut his own tongue out rather than risk uttering it a second time.

Just to clarify, I didn't use it as a noun. Here's what I meant:

> This difference in the interpretation of (what benefit) decentralization provides