I’m surprised IPFS hasn’t been mentioned. It’s a great example of compromise. IPNS tries to replace DNS but it’s slow so the compromised and allowed DNSLink. It’s a great application of decentralization. I want some bits that hash to X and I don’t care who gives them to me.
What to do once you admit that decentralization never seems to work (2018)
11–20 of 148 posts
Re: What to do once you admit that decentralization never seems to work (2018)
#12> decentralization never seems to work Not true, and there is many technologies, both new and established, which are fundamentally decentralized. Bittorrent is the first example that springs to mind. Cryptocurrencies are another example, etc.
The article, if seen as criticism of decentralization in general, would be a big straw-man.
But the actual thesis of the author is that you can't decentralize "everything" (the HN title has the straw man though). Even in successful decentralized networks, some aspects (usually governance) stay or become centralized. The author easily succeeds in making that point because everyone already agrees with it.
Whether that's a problem worth discarding the whole movement towards decentralization is mostly a matter of preconceived opinions.
Re: What to do once you admit that decentralization never seems to work (2018)
#13> decentralization never seems to work Not true, and there is many technologies, both new and established, which are fundamentally decentralized. Bittorrent is the first example that springs to mind. Cryptocurrencies are another example, etc.
The Web and email are both decentralized.
The Internet is decentralized to the extent there's no single "Internet company" which can kick you off.
Various companies try very hard to make you forget these things.
Re: What to do once you admit that decentralization never seems to work (2018)
#14> decentralization never seems to work Not true, and there is many technologies, both new and established, which are fundamentally decentralized. Bittorrent is the first example that springs to mind. Cryptocurrencies are another example, etc.
BitTorrent the protocol is decentralized but again when one of the largest torrent sites goes down it shows. That the protocol was decentralized didn’t make the usage pattern decentralized because it’s so convenient with centralization. And the same again with git: when github goes down we see that a distributed version control protocol isn’t very different from a centralized one if we all use centralized servers and usage patterns (which almost everyone does).
Re: What to do once you admit that decentralization never seems to work (2018)
#15Decentralization and devolution are often confused. For instance, in the US Civil War, the splintering could be described as devolution. But it certainly wasn't decentralizing power to the slaves. Which side was the side of "decentralization?" It's almost a meaningless question, unless being very well defined.
Obviously, the Pareto Principle is usually at work, even if protocols are decentralized by design. Email is decentralized by design, but centralized in practice.
Even if one were to capture political control and attempt to redesign governance to be decentralized, there would still be a type of natural selection process for systems which seek to reproduce and expand, by all possible means including violence.
And decentralization and non-violence are also different, as well. Decentralized collective violence is common.
Re: What to do once you admit that decentralization never seems to work (2018)
#16Decentralization and devolution are often confused. For instance, in the US Civil War, the splintering could be described as devolution. But it certainly wasn't decentralizing power to the slaves. Which side was the side of "decentralization?" It's almost a meaningless question, unless being very well defined. Obviously, the Pareto Principle is usually at work, even if protocols are decentralized by design. Email is…
> Email is decentralized by design, but centralized in practice.
Why do you say that? I see email as an example of very successful decentralisation. GMail etc. have a large share of the market but they don't dominate it, and the different providers interoperate very well.
Re: What to do once you admit that decentralization never seems to work (2018)
#17> decentralization never seems to work Not true, and there is many technologies, both new and established, which are fundamentally decentralized. Bittorrent is the first example that springs to mind. Cryptocurrencies are another example, etc.
BitTorrent the protocol is decentralized but again when one of the largest torrent sites goes down it shows. That the protocol was decentralized didn’t make the usage pattern decentralized because it’s so convenient with centralization. And the same again with git: when github goes down we see that a distributed version control protocol isn’t very different from a centralized one if we all use centralized servers and…
On the github point, agree that I've never come across a non centralised workflow with git - what are the decentralised git workflows?
The issues involved with everyone pulling from everyone, dealing with merge conflicts, etc in a distributed way with no agreed upon, central, source of truth seems fairly implausible for any reasonably sized team but I'd love to know if there are gitflow style workflows for this that make it easier than it first appears.
Re: What to do once you admit that decentralization never seems to work (2018)
#18> decentralization never seems to work Not true, and there is many technologies, both new and established, which are fundamentally decentralized. Bittorrent is the first example that springs to mind. Cryptocurrencies are another example, etc.
The Web and email are both decentralized. The Internet is decentralized to the extent there's no single "Internet company" which can kick you off. Various companies try very hard to make you forget these things.
Almost no new B2C web company can work without Google.
Re: What to do once you admit that decentralization never seems to work (2018)
#19Decentralization and devolution are often confused. For instance, in the US Civil War, the splintering could be described as devolution. But it certainly wasn't decentralizing power to the slaves. Which side was the side of "decentralization?" It's almost a meaningless question, unless being very well defined. Obviously, the Pareto Principle is usually at work, even if protocols are decentralized by design. Email is…
>For instance, in the US Civil War, the splintering could be described as devolution. But it certainly wasn't decentralizing power to the slaves.
it was decentralizing in the sense that secession was meant to grant political authority to local elites. 'devolution' just sounds like a moral judgment, which while fair is not very useful for these purposes.
Re: What to do once you admit that decentralization never seems to work (2018)
#20Decentralization and devolution are often confused. For instance, in the US Civil War, the splintering could be described as devolution. But it certainly wasn't decentralizing power to the slaves. Which side was the side of "decentralization?" It's almost a meaningless question, unless being very well defined. Obviously, the Pareto Principle is usually at work, even if protocols are decentralized by design. Email is…
> Email is decentralized by design, but centralized in practice. Why do you say that? I see email as an example of very successful decentralisation. GMail etc. have a large share of the market but they don't dominate it, and the different providers interoperate very well.
Most markets exhibit oligopolistic competition, and email is no exception.
Google controls the most, yes, but they aren't the only ones to consider. The number of competitors who are significant players are only a handful. The top 5 providers likely account for the overwhelming majority of all email.
Email being an open protocol allows interoperability and lowers barriers to entry, and all of that is good, but power is still concentrated into the hands of a few players nonetheless.