241–250 of 363 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some torrents depend on trackers, yes. Others use magnet links, which aren't dependent on trackers at all. The data typically served by a tracker is instead stored in the DHT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_DHT
DHT helps with downloading, but content discovery depends on tracker. You can't search for, rate or review content in DHT.
Does anyone remember the "decentralized web" of the early 2000s? Varous P2P protocols existed that allowed everyone to share content freely, and they did. Content that was not even originally in digital form was digitised and nothing but a search away. It was amazing. The copyright/media industry didn't like that. Security paranoia (possibly assisted by the industry) also heightened its demise. I really do hope we se…
Decentralization sounds great, but it can be a pain in the ass, sometimes. And if you've somehow managed to set it up to feel like it's centralized then 1) it probably is and 2) you've made it easier for someone to create a one-stop-shop which is centralized, built on top of your decentralization.
So nobody can "give the power back" to anybody, but people can stop giving their power away to others. We all have power, and we manifest it through our actions and choices. Some say knowledge is power, but in order to gain knowledge you have to make that choice. One can try to educate people about the benefits of hosting their own data, but unless they make the choice to listen and understand it's all for nothing. I…
The "People don't understand" is a condescending statement and is exactly the reason why the people who try to build these decentralized systems never succeed, because they don't even understand why people use information silos. If you really think that's the problem and you think you know better than other people, you should quit using every single centralized system out there, like your bank (they take your money a…
Even if you understand the downside of centralized systems (and most people really do not), you cannot individually do anything to stop them. So you use them out of convenience.
"Decentralized" people are out of touch only to the degree that they believe that they can change the world based on collective altruism. That is an uphill battle. They are not out of touch in realizing the dystopia that we are heading towards.
I imagine two possible scenarios for decentralized systems to take over:
a) Dystopia goes mainstream -- one scenario: "social credit scores" become common practice and people start to fear using the web to an extreme degree;
b) Someone comes up with a decentralized system that is able to do something, only possible with decentralization, that everyone really really wants.
I hope b) happens first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hadnt, but thank you for the pointer. Please feel free to pop into the solid gitter channel. Tim is a participant when he has time. https://gitter.im/solid/chat
why on earth are you using a centralised chat product for Solid?! Please at least give https://riot.im a go - you can bridge it straight into Gitter for people who like the gitter UI :)
Whatever else it may be, the animation banner just killed it for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, so let's actually talk about those people then. The theory is that there is an unavoidable compromise between privacy and features and some people will legitimately choose features. That can be true, e.g. to do "people like you also viewed ..." you need the data on what people like you also viewed. But those things are relatively rare and can be separated out. You can layer them on top of a decentralized system -…
The data analysis required to improve search relevance, video recommendation, A/B testing, feature improvement - basically anything, relies on crunching data on as many users as possible. For example, you cannot get to Google or Facebook's level of artificial intelligence research and performance achievements without truly vast amounts of data. This criticism of decentralization is in addition to my parallel comment…
This argument is self-defeating. If any significant plurality (e.g. a third) of people opt into the "privacy for analysis" setting then you still have "truly vast amounts of data" and there is no trouble. Whereas if so few people want to make that exchange when the choice is made explicit that it can't even work properly then it doesn't matter how well it works because nearly everyone doesn't use it.
> The performance and reliability would also be difficult to manage without centralized servers. You're not going to be maintaining the same uptime guarantees.
Uptime is just math. You decide how much service uptime you need and based on the average device uptime that determines how much redundancy is necessary to achieve it. Consumer devices have lower uptime so you need somewhat more redundancy. And in practice not even much of that, because you want "close copies" (to improve latency/efficiency) anyway, so if you have enough copies for that then a failure doesn't reduce uptime, it just requires you to use a far copy that once.
Moreover, if you have something that really does need specific uptime guarantees or is unusually likely to incur a DDoS, nothing stops you from pinning it to a P2P node hosted on the likes of AWS or CloudFlare. Then to lose uptime you have to lose the entire P2P network and CloudFlare.
> Finally, how are you going to motivate development in a decentralized manner?
Much the same way as we motivate development of Windows, Linux and Wikipedia.
Decentralized services have not been able to compete with their walled garden counterparts due to lack of resources and access to capital, as well as the coordination costs of federation. It's a structural and not a technical problem. I can't see how this will ever change. Most decentralized services are open source projects maintained by volunteer developers. They are competing with centralized commercial projects w…
I don't think so. Decentralized services never took off very much because of tremendous technical difficulties with reliable NAT traversal/hole punching. Companies like Skype spent unbelievable efforts to get around these problems and kept them a closely guarded secret. There are a few more libraries now, but it's still surprisingly difficult to achieve reliable p2p connectivity without some external, centralized ser…
This conclusion is not really supported by the facts.
The failure of decentralized VOIP services to achieve mass adoption was not due to technical reasons. Let us remember that SIP was standardized in RFC 2543 in 1999 and had a head start over Skype. The first STUN (Session Traversal Utilities for NAT) RFC 3489 to help solve the NAT traversal problem was published in 2003, the same year as the first release of Skype. There was no technical reason stopping the SIP community from building reliable VOIP clients to compete with Skype. One might object that due to NAT, SIP required most users to use a STUN server. But this is not a technical problem: it is similar to the situation with XMPP, which required users to register and then connect to an XMPP server, yet XMPP is still a decentralized protocol.
Besides, decentralized services encompass a lot more than just VOIP. For example, they includes instant messaging, file storage, and social networking. The first Jabber/XMPP protocol RFC was published in 2004, even though the server software had been open sourced since 1999 or so. The decentralized file storage service Tahoe-LAFS was first released in 2007. The micro-blogging service and Twitter-alternative GNU Social was launched in 2008. The Diaspora decentralized Facebook-like social network was launched in 2010. None of these services were able to compete with their commercial counterparts, yet there was nothing technical stopping them from doing so.
These services and their spiritual descendants have failed to gain mass adoption because they didn't have the same resources as their centralized commercial counterparts, and so could not offer users a better or comparable product in terms of quality, features, usability, reliability, or even "cool factor".
There is a parallel here with the mythical Year of the Linux Desktop, which never seems to arrive.
So nobody can "give the power back" to anybody, but people can stop giving their power away to others. We all have power, and we manifest it through our actions and choices. Some say knowledge is power, but in order to gain knowledge you have to make that choice. One can try to educate people about the benefits of hosting their own data, but unless they make the choice to listen and understand it's all for nothing. I…
So nobody can "give the power back" to anybody, but people can stop giving their power away to others. We all have power, and we manifest it through our actions and choices. Some say knowledge is power, but in order to gain knowledge you have to make that choice. One can try to educate people about the benefits of hosting their own data, but unless they make the choice to listen and understand it's all for nothing. I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ISPs don't do that. That's your NAT/firewall. Has anyone ever actually seen an ISP network that filters local traffic to other ISP endpoints? I'm not even sure why they would do that. DDOS almost always targets big things in the cloud so it would not help there. Here (SoCal) traceroute to a host in the same local neighborhood is three hops.
There is a highlight point that many internet services are indeed asymmetrical. My Comcast service is 180/20 Mbps, down/up respectively. Even if you get Comcast's new gigabit service, you get 940 down, and 40 up. And many home ISPs prohibit you from serving a website at home, according to their terms of service.
The 940/40 is DOCSIS 3.1
The situation with uploads on home connections is better than it was a few years ago though.