Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The importance of decentralisation

ungleich.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 137 posts

Re: The importance of decentralisation

#31

Post by naasking »

jasode wrote: post #16

It's sort of an ongoing hobby of mine to study the forces of decentralization vs centralization. This article about decentralization does what many other evangelism articles do: talk about the ideals and benefits . However, I believed what's rarely discussed but more important is the economic forces that prevent decentralization from fulfilling the idealists' vision. Yes, decentralization will be in effect for niche…

To summarize, centralization allows certain efficiencies that are not permitted in decentralized systems, and those efficiencies have value. Of course, decentralization itself also has value, so the question in any given circumstance is, "what balance between efficiency and decentralized robustness do I need?"

Re: The importance of decentralisation

#32

Post by foobar_ »

Some random thoughts on centralization vs decentralization. In theory, IPv6 allows every human, pet, alien and robot to have an address. Each address can host let's say the following services

1. info - dns

2. data transfer - ftp/http/p2p/...

3. communication - email/voip/...

4. entertainment - game server/media server/...

Right now the biggest problems with decentralisation are

1. ownership of hardware

2. assigning of address and interfacing with the network.

3. configuration and setup of services

4. scalability of the service

5. using decentralized stuff for illegal activities

I think 2 and 3 is the biggest win improving decentralized services and getting rid of facebook and the like. Why are two and 3 still hard? This will also make decentralized services appealing to normal folks. The biggest challenge to making decentralized services mainstream is 5.

Hardware is manufactured by a few monopolies and they impose some restrictions and tracking abilities. The assigning of an address is done by the telecom and they have some rules, regulations and tracking abilities. Each country right now is setting up new rules and regulations for the data that comes into it. As configuring and the setting up of stuff is hard we once again have a few major services. The illegal activity makes decentralized services seem like the wild west and centralized services seem like stable societies. The spirit of legality is to ensure fairness but when that doesn't happen people turn to decentralized mediums to express themselves.

Re: The importance of decentralisation

#33

Post by dgb23 »

hirundo wrote: post #24

This underlines the positive side of Tall Poppy Syndrome. Envy has a number of serious down sides, including making the sufferer miserable for, usually, very little return. But when people stop using an Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc., because they are successful, it creates a counter-force to centralization. Like hate, when well directed, envy can be good. Like hate, it can easily get out of control and cause great…

Envy might be a factor but I feel like wanting freedom and mistrusting authorities/corporations are stronger here.

Re: The importance of decentralisation

#34

Post by kodablah »

jasode wrote: post #16

It's sort of an ongoing hobby of mine to study the forces of decentralization vs centralization. This article about decentralization does what many other evangelism articles do: talk about the ideals and benefits . However, I believed what's rarely discussed but more important is the economic forces that prevent decentralization from fulfilling the idealists' vision. Yes, decentralization will be in effect for niche…

> To purposely be provocative to spur discussion I will make a bold claim: Decentralization is an unstable equilibrium. It's the centralization that becomes the stable status quo.

Spurred. Firstly, this ignores the variance between absolute decentralization and absolute centralization. By reducing the discussion to black and white, we can't recognize a middleground that may not be as decentralized as all-in-home yet not so centralized as owned by a few. I'd argue that much of the internet remains in this middleground, popularity notwithstanding. Secondly, what is and isn't mainstream is the result of ease of use, implementation quality, and improvements over alternatives. Popularity and other knock-on effects may follow, but needn't be the initial goals. That these aren't achieved in decentralized setups is not evidence that they never will. When they are, and the economic forces then come along with adoption (that's the usual order after all), you'll see a shift in focus without necessarily a shift towards centralization. Until then we accept that centralized versions of more popular services are better implemented currently.

One thing everyone agrees on, the vast majority of users don't care (nor should they).

Re: The importance of decentralisation

#36

Post by mdtusz »

solatic wrote: post #27
jasode wrote: post #16

It's sort of an ongoing hobby of mine to study the forces of decentralization vs centralization. This article about decentralization does what many other evangelism articles do: talk about the ideals and benefits . However, I believed what's rarely discussed but more important is the economic forces that prevent decentralization from fulfilling the idealists' vision. Yes, decentralization will be in effect for niche…

> Centralization is a natural outcome of millions of people not wanting to (1) spend money and (2) not wanting to spend extra time -- to fulfill ideals of decentralization. Ironically enough, people do not live year-round in centralized hotels with cleaning services provided. They live in their own decentralized homes, and make an economic decision whether to take care of their cleaning needs by themselves, or to out…

This isn't a very good comparison though for looking at technology. The problem of washing dishes, cleaning a kitchen, vacuuming, making a bed etc. Is O(n) in _economic_ complexity. Managing data and technology services is somewhere around O(log(n)). Managing 100 servers is much more difficult than managing 1, but managing 200 is not much more difficult than 100.

Re: The importance of decentralisation

#37

Post by tambre »

hkjhreiou wrote: post #14

So what's the latest deal with IPv6? IPv4 was supposed to run out and the Internet come crashing down 5 years ago, yet here we are, and everything seems just fine, while a billion smartphones were added.

> while a billion smartphones were added

A huge number of them being on IPv6-only mobile networks using NAT64 to access the old Internet.

Re: The importance of decentralisation

#38

Post by telmich »

kodablah wrote: post #34
jasode wrote: post #16

It's sort of an ongoing hobby of mine to study the forces of decentralization vs centralization. This article about decentralization does what many other evangelism articles do: talk about the ideals and benefits . However, I believed what's rarely discussed but more important is the economic forces that prevent decentralization from fulfilling the idealists' vision. Yes, decentralization will be in effect for niche…

> To purposely be provocative to spur discussion I will make a bold claim: Decentralization is an unstable equilibrium. It's the centralization that becomes the stable status quo. Spurred. Firstly, this ignores the variance between absolute decentralization and absolute centralization. By reducing the discussion to black and white, we can't recognize a middleground that may not be as decentralized as all-in-home yet…

I would say if you assume that markets don't regulate themselves to the best, the argument that users should not care, is not valid.

Or put it the other way: if users don't care, they will be exposed to changes / forces they don't control nor want.

I think this is very similar to political activity: if you don't vote, your life will be more influenced by the opinions of others.

If you vote (care), then you can make a change

Re: The importance of decentralisation

#39

Post by socialdemocrat »

jasode wrote: post #16

It's sort of an ongoing hobby of mine to study the forces of decentralization vs centralization. This article about decentralization does what many other evangelism articles do: talk about the ideals and benefits . However, I believed what's rarely discussed but more important is the economic forces that prevent decentralization from fulfilling the idealists' vision. Yes, decentralization will be in effect for niche…

Here is my counter to these thoughts: Decentralized internet was not created by a myriad of decentralized decisions. A centralized authority came up with the idea and created TCP/IP. Just like centralized decisions were made to create the decentralized/balance of power democratic systems we have today.

Capitalism itself is naturally centralizing. That is why we have anti-thrust laws. We don't just leave it to consumers to make sure centralization does not happen in the market. It is the job of the government to prevent it.

I agree with you that centralization is the natural order or things. But I disagree with your implication that it is somehow the individual users who are responsible for keeping a system decentralized.

In much of Europe, a large number of cell phone service choice and broadband choice was created because government mandated that companies with infrastructure had to let other companies borrow it and offer services on it.

Capitalism and free markets exist because a centralized government maintains it.

The solution IMHO is not to blame the individuals but to combine in collective action and collectively agree/decide we want a different arrangement. In other words one has to bring this to the political level. That could mean anti trust action against google, facebook etc.

Re: The importance of decentralisation

#40

Post by astine »

solatic wrote: post #27
jasode wrote: post #16

It's sort of an ongoing hobby of mine to study the forces of decentralization vs centralization. This article about decentralization does what many other evangelism articles do: talk about the ideals and benefits . However, I believed what's rarely discussed but more important is the economic forces that prevent decentralization from fulfilling the idealists' vision. Yes, decentralization will be in effect for niche…

> Centralization is a natural outcome of millions of people not wanting to (1) spend money and (2) not wanting to spend extra time -- to fulfill ideals of decentralization. Ironically enough, people do not live year-round in centralized hotels with cleaning services provided. They live in their own decentralized homes, and make an economic decision whether to take care of their cleaning needs by themselves, or to out…

"Ironically enough, people do not live year-round in centralized hotels with cleaning services provided. They live in their own decentralized homes, and make an economic decision whether to take care of their cleaning needs by themselves, or to outsource and hire somebody to clean their domicile for them."

I think that this is mostly to do with the fact that you can't simply take advantage of economies of scale and centralize ever one into a single housing block the way you can with a lot of web-based businesses. Despite this, a lot of people do live in apartments complexes with centralized maintenance and utilities. Moving to a house is about gaining space than independence, I think.

Post reply on HN