varunsrin

if you didn't like the term smart contracts in the header image, you probably won't like it in the body either :)

i don't believe they are the same thing

here's an example that might help -- you can allow key A to own your identity and key B to move your identity to another key. But key B can only move the identity after a time delay if key A does not cancel it. So key B is not your "real key" -- as long as key A is around it is an inferiorly permissioned key. But if Key A is missing then key B becomes the real key.

the key insight is that smart contracts can be used to transmute keys from single points of ownership into a distributed set of permissions.

you can compose a whole set of recovery systems with this primitive - key B could be your ledger or it could be a friend or it could be a third party service that offers "recovery as a service" where you have to call them and prove your identity before they will recover it back to you.

not a dumb question.

if you squint, the protocol i've described is really a fancy version of RSS. In fact, the original brainstorm doc for this idea was titled RSS+ :)

author here.

what distributed database would let you own your identity without any third party party being able to take it away from you?

that's a necessary condition for sufficient decentralization, and the only distributed databases capable of achieving such guarantees are L1 blockchains.

what is the best reading you've found that explains polycentricity well?

account recovery is very possible with smart contracts and public-key crypto

author here - you're right that the average user doesn't care about decentralization as a first order benefit. people typically use social networks to be entertained / informed or to increase their status. we've been building a new, decentralized social network and we've learned this first hand.

but if you've figured out a new social network, building it in a decentralized manner today might give you very strong second order benefits. and its now possible to do this in a way that doesn't compromise the user experience.

if im not mistaken, whatsapp already monetizes their users, charging $1 / year after the first year.

with 700m active users, they potentially could be generating ~ 3.6% of their sale price in annual revenue.