Hiring D programmers (with cryptography and blockchain knowledge are preferred)

[aberba via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 05:18:40 UTC, wigy wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 20:11:06 UTC, Vitor Rozsas wrote:
>> So... suggestions... Centralized? Decentralized?
>>
>> I think the centralized wouldn't fit in any country. It would 
>> certainly contain pedophile posts... and any sane country 
>> would shut down the servers immediately...
>>
>> So... DEcentralized?
>
> Hi! I do not think the debate you have with yourself is 
> decentralized vs centralized. You are thinking about moderated 
> vs unmoderated. One is a technical structure, the other is a 
> social one.
>
> We got used to have moderated channels in media and unmoderated 
> channels in person. Now the problem we are facing is that we 
> use these social media platforms for replacing "in person" 
> communications with friend and family. And the owners of these 
> platforms are still treating it as "media" that they should 
> moderate.
>
> But this is not so black-and-white still. When i am talking to 
> my mother-in-law who has different political biases than me, I 
> moderate *myself* not to bring up topics that would just divide 
> us, because I love her enough to tolerate her opinions. What 
> happens is that we have many social circles in which we have 
> different topics and ethical norms. This is in our nature and 
> that is fine. Football fans ventilate their emotions at the 
> game, but they would not use the same language in their 
> workplace.
>
> So what I see is that a social media platform should be 
> decentralized to avoid influence from its owner. It should be 
> divided into many communities. And each community should be 
> able to downvote content that is not tolerated in those 
> circles. And downvoted content should be also available by 
> others, it should just take more actions to peek into that and 
> convince yourself that it was indeed something inapt for that 
> community.
>
> In the digital world, everything seems to be black and white. 
> But social behaviors are more subtle than that. It is easy to 
> create a total dictatorial system like facebook, and it is also 
> easy to create a total anarchist system like Silk Road. And our 
> goal is to create a system that is similar to in-real-life 
> communication, which is neither completely free, nor completely 
> controlled.
>
> You cannot build that system on top of a centralized 
> architecture where a government can just ask for all data 
> including a order to keep that secret. People never trusted 
> their inner thoughts or family conversation onto the 
> government. And they should not.

This answer is brilliant...it comes out of understanding...deep 
thinking

Now...personally I don't think this social media platform 
potential hype will last. Very soon it will get out of hand. It 
means Facebook, etc. that doesn't offer any quantifiable needed 
value will die if they don't innovate out of the social media 
realm. Presure from governments and users needs will facilitate 
the death of the social media market.

But one thing is certain. Security is becoming a problem. Monies 
are becoming digital. There is a rising need for securing digital 
value without sacrificing convenience.

Our systems today are not designed for that. Sooner or later 
those patches we are making to our systems temporary will get 
exhusted.

Its either an innovative use of blockchain-like systems or a 
secure-from-scratch sandboxing system.

Blockchain seem interesting for D.