Distributed web not ready for Runet cutoff from the Internet
1–10 of 48 posts
Re: Distributed web not ready for Runet cutoff from the Internet
#2This is total FUD.
The Decentralized Web is a lot bigger than just only the 2 projects they mention.
Developers in our community ( https://github.com/amark/gun ) are already running local multi-cast discovery (working!) and have Bluetooth in the works. And we can do extended peer discovery through decentralized signaling relays (any/all peers contribute to this, WebRTC, browser, or other).
Internet Archive is using us for their dweb mirror.
Additionally the system uses daisy-chain mesh net algorithms to proxy messages regardless of whether you are directly connected to peers or not.
Bring it, Russia.
Re: Distributed web not ready for Runet cutoff from the Internet
#3I can attest that the blog post is accurate, at least for the Dat protocol. We used the BitTorrent mainnet DHT for a while, but results were so bad that we retired it and fell back to our tracker. We're working on the Hyperswarm DHT now to get things more resilient. We're taking up Daniel's other action points as well.
Re: Distributed web not ready for Runet cutoff from the Internet
#4The sad reality of modern "decentralized" software is that organizations, people behind it don't even have any intentions to make it decentralized, to give up control, like BitTorrent did. Nobody cares about the main thing that decentralization is all about - making rule/law enforcement on others practically impossible.
There was a great series of posts about decentralization from BitTorrent people recently:
https://medium.com/@simonhmorris/why-bittorrent-mattered-bit...
https://medium.com/@simonhmorris/if-youre-not-breaking-rules...
https://medium.com/@simonhmorris/intent-complexity-and-the-g...
https://medium.com/@simonhmorris/decentralized-disruption-wh...
Re: Distributed web not ready for Runet cutoff from the Internet
#5The last time I checked IPFS is a joke. There are only two implementations of IPFS protocol and both come from the same group of developers.
On the other hand, there are so many BitTorrent protocol implementations from totally independent group of developers.
Also, the namespace system of IPFS is just beyond stupid. They openly recommend relying the traditional central DNS to resolve the human readable name to hash.
I didn't bother to examine the Dat, but it looks like worse than IPFS.
Re: Distributed web not ready for Runet cutoff from the Internet
#6The sad reality of modern "decentralized" software is that organizations, people behind it don't even have any intentions to make it decentralized, to give up control, like BitTorrent did. Nobody cares about the main thing that decentralization is all about - making rule/law enforcement on others practically impossible. There was a great series of posts about decentralization from BitTorrent people recently: https://…
> ...organizations, people behind it don't even have any intentions to make it decentralized, to give up control, like BitTorrent did
Huh? Where is this coming from? Can the IPFS or DAT community leaders reign anything in? There are bootstrap nodes but I'm pretty sure these are just practical stopgaps for now, not a means of control.
Re: Distributed web not ready for Runet cutoff from the Internet
#7I can attest that the blog post is accurate, at least for the Dat protocol. We used the BitTorrent mainnet DHT for a while, but results were so bad that we retired it and fell back to our tracker. We're working on the Hyperswarm DHT now to get things more resilient. We're taking up Daniel's other action points as well.
I'm curious, what's wrong with the BitTorrent DHT that you can improve in your own?
Re: Distributed web not ready for Runet cutoff from the Internet
#8Oh lord, what’s this going to do to the blockchains?
Re: Distributed web not ready for Runet cutoff from the Internet
#9One of them that will, or at least should be able to continue, is scuttlebutt. Scuttlebutt clients on an isolated LAN can share messages with each other. To go beyond the LAN, you point at a "pub server", which anyone can host anywhere. Yes, only russian-based pub servers will be available, and that assumes they are using russian based DNS to point to them (or have a known static IP). However, for the test of communicating within your region, scuttlebutt will hold up.
The protocol, clients, and pub servers (which are really just automated clients) are designed with an offline-first approach, then local, then regional, then global. Messages are copied between clients as they come into contact with each other. One way to visualize it is by picturing islands of people gossiping locally, and then having ships carry that scuttlebutt from island to island.
Re: Distributed web not ready for Runet cutoff from the Internet
#10Oh lord, what’s this going to do to the blockchains?
At least bitcoin will be mostly unaffected since you can receive blocks via satellite [1] and if even one satellite connected node is inside Runet then you can at least keep up with the blockchain. Sending transactions can be done via sms [2]. The main problem would be mining in Russia, but if miners know about the shutdown in advance and it's economically feasible then they can get satellite internet to upload found blocks.
[1] https://blockstream.com/satellite/
[2] https://twitter.com/SamouraiWallet/status/954271930365947904