Optical Media Durability Update

Three years ago I posted Optical Media Durability and discovered:

Surprisingly, I'm getting good data from CD-Rs more than 14 years old, and from DVD-Rs nearly 12 years old. Your mileage may vary.

Two years ago I repeated the mind-numbing process of feeding 45 disks through the reader and verifying their checksums. A year ago I did it again.

It is time again for this annual chore, and yet again this year I failed to find any errors. Below the fold, the details.

Zittrain On Internet Rot

I spent two decades working on the problem of preserving digital documents, especially those published on the Web, in the LOCKSS Program. So I'm in agreement with the overall argument of Jonathan Zittrain's The Internet Is Rotting, that digital information is evanescent and mutable, and that libraries are no longer fulfilling their mission to be society's memory institutions. He writes:

People tend to overlook the decay of the modern web, when in fact these numbers are extraordinary—they represent a comprehensive breakdown in the chain of custody for facts. Libraries exist, and they still have books in them, but they aren’t stewarding a huge percentage of the information that people are linking to, including within formal, legal documents. No one is. The flexibility of the web—the very feature that makes it work, that had it eclipse CompuServe and other centrally organized networks—diffuses responsibility for this core societal function.

And concludes:

Society can’t understand itself if it can’t be honest with itself, and it can’t be honest with itself if it can only live in the present moment. It’s long overdue to affirm and enact the policies and technologies that will let us see where we’ve been, including and especially where we’ve erred, so we might have a coherent sense of where we are and where we want to go.

In our first paper about LOCKSS, Vicky Reich and I wrote:

Librarians have a well-founded confidence in their ability to provide their readers with access to material published on paper, even if it is centuries old. Preservation is a by-product of the need to scatter copies around to provide access. Librarians have an equally well-founded skepticism about their ability to do the same for material published in electronic form. Preservation is totally at the whim of the publisher.

A subscription to a paper journal provides the library with an archival copy of the content. Subscribing to a Web journal rents access to the publisher’s copy. The publisher may promise "perpetual access", but there is no business model to support the promise. Recent events have demonstrated that major journals may vanish from the Web at a few months notice.

Although I agree with Zittrain's big picture, I have some problems with his details. Below the fold I explain the issues I have with them.

The Economist On Cryptocurrencies

The Economist edition dated August 7^th has a leader (Unstablecoins) and two articles (in the Finance section (The disaster scenario and Here comes the sheriff).

Source

The leader argues that:

Regulators must act quickly to subject stablecoins to bank-like rules for transparency, liquidity and capital. Those failing to comply should be cut off from the financial system, to stop people drifting into an unregulated crypto-ecosystem. Policymakers are right to sound the alarm, but if stablecoins continue to grow, governments will need to move faster to contain the risks.

But even The Economist gets taken in by the typical cryptocurrency hype, balancing current actual risks against future possible benefits:

Yet it is possible that regulated private-sector stablecoins will eventually bring benefits, such as making cross-border payments easier, or allowing self-executing “smart contracts”. Regulators should allow experiments whose goal is not merely to evade financial rules.

They don't seem to understand that, just as the whole point of Uber is to evade the rules for taxis, the whole point of cryptocurrency is to "evade financial rules".

Below the fold I comment on the two articles.

Stablecoins Part 2

I wrote Stablecoins about Tether and its "magic money pump" seven months ago. A lot has happened and a lot has been written about it since, and some of it explores aspects I didn't understand at the time, so below the fold at some length I try to catch up.

Economics Of Evil Revisited

Eight years ago I wrote Economics of Evil about the death of Google Reader and Google's habit of leaving its customers users in the lurch. In the comments to the post I started keeping track of accessions to le petit musée des projets Google abandonnés. So far I've recorded at least 33 dead products, an average of more than 4 a year. Two years ago Ron Amadeo wrote about the problem this causes in Google’s constant product shutdowns are damaging its brand:

We are 91 days into the year, and so far, Google is racking up an unprecedented body count. If we just take the official shutdown dates that have already occurred in 2019, a Google-branded product, feature, or service has died, on average, about every nine days.

Below the fold, some commentary on Amadeo's latest report from the killing fields, in which he detects a little remorse.

Yet Another DNA Storage Technique

Source

An alternative approach to nucleic acid memory by George D. Dickinson et al from Boise State University describes a fundamentally different way to store and retrieve data using DNA strands as the medium. Will Hughes et al have an accessible summary in DNA ‘Lite-Brite’ is a promising way to archive data for decades or longer:

We and our colleagues have developed a way to store data using pegs and pegboards made out of DNA and retrieving the data with a microscope – a molecular version of the Lite-Brite toy. Our prototype stores information in patterns using DNA strands spaced about 10 nanometers apart.

Below the fold I look at the details of the technique they call digital Nucleic Acid Memory (dNAM).

Alternatives To Proof-of-Work

The designers of peer-to-peer consensus protocols such as those underlying cryptocurrencies face three distinct problems. They need to prevent:

• Being swamped by a multitude of Sybil peers under the control of an attacker. This requires making peer participation expensive, such as by Proof-of-Work (PoW). PoW is problematic because it has a catastrophic carbon footprint.
• A rational majority of peers from conspiring to obtain inappropriate benefits. This is thought to be achieved by decentralization, that is a network of so many peers acting independently that a conspiracy among a majority of them is highly improbable. Decentralization is problematic because in practice all successful cryptocurrencies are effectively centralized.
• A rational minority of peers from conspiring to obtain inappropriate benefits. This requirement is called incentive compatibility. This is problematic because it requires very careful design of the protocol.

In the rather long post below the fold I focus on some potential alternatives to PoW, inspired by Jeremiah Wagstaff's Subspace: A Solution to the Farmer’s Dilemma, the white paper for a new blockchain technology.