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

Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

subconscious.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 158 posts

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#81

Post by bombcar »

mellavora wrote: post #48
skybrian wrote: post #13

Nit: Dunbar’s number is casually used in a way that doesn’t seem relevant here. It’s not true that we can only remember about 150 entities. People know many thousands of words. (It is true that there are limits on what people will remember.)

Dunbar's number is that ON AVERAGE people can only maintain 150 relationships. "maintaining relationship" is not the same as remembering or knowing the person's name. It is spending enough time with the person that you have an ongoing relationship, which is eased if you remember a number of details about them (job history, hobbies, birthdays, etc). On average matters because the number is about group size, not any on…

Another way to put it is that for a group of 100-150 or so, you'll be able know everyone decently well. A small college graduating class, or a tiny high school perhaps.

At about 300 or so, you'll "recognize" most of the group, but you won't know much about many of them, or really have a relationship.

And once the group is above that, you either need to have it hierarchical setup (you don't know all the members of the families at your school, but you recognize the parents, etc) or it just becomes a mash of smaller groups (no matter how you try to pretend it isn't).

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#82

Post by bombcar »

mistermann wrote: post #59
seydor wrote: post #41

the internet is even less constrained than the airport network. With practically zero friction keeping it in check, it can centralize completely. So, we can't put our eggs on decentralization, but instead we should put them on competition. Seemingly however, there is no competitor to silicon valley. And the valley itself is extremely anticompetitive and monopolistic, with different parts of the net being consolidated…

Is it possible to host a site on a Chinese or Russian internet such that it is impossible to be taken down by Western forces?

Yes but no, as the Chinese or Russians may be much more likely to take down your site.

If the site is supported by the country, it is VERY hard to take down.

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#83

Post by bombcar »

YurgenJurgensen wrote: post #49
stickyricky wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't provided as a condition. In a bank run, Visa's existence or non-existence is irrelevant. Credit is frozen.

Do you really think Visa and Meta could go under without causing a bank run?

By "Visa" do you mean "all payment clearing houses" and by Meta do you mean "all social media"?

Because if Visa shits itself (it has) I use Amex, Mastercard, cash, debit, or even checks.

And if Meta shits itself I don't even notice except to make fun of it.

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#84

Post by seydor »

mistermann wrote: post #59
seydor wrote: post #41

the internet is even less constrained than the airport network. With practically zero friction keeping it in check, it can centralize completely. So, we can't put our eggs on decentralization, but instead we should put them on competition. Seemingly however, there is no competitor to silicon valley. And the valley itself is extremely anticompetitive and monopolistic, with different parts of the net being consolidated…

Is it possible to host a site on a Chinese or Russian internet such that it is impossible to be taken down by Western forces?

I assume so, in russia

Of course western governments can block it

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#85

Post by nonrandomstring »

mypalmike wrote: post #58
nonrandomstring wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And me. So your "exception" hypothesis is getting weaker :) You've really got me thinking. Is there a word for that thing when "everyone knows" what they think "everyone is doing", but once they start to dig deeper it turns out nobody really is? Everyone is pretending to, because they think that's what everybody should say and do? Mass delusion? Group fallacy? Fashion? Groupthink? None quite capture it.

I think what's happening here is selection bias. The people who proudly have no Meta accounts are replying to each other saying "me too". The hundreds of others who were reading did not reply.

Sample bias is a thing, sure.

I'm alluding to something a bit more interesting, I hope.

We don't have a way to test those hundreds of voices comprising the supposed silent majority. I'm saying that when/(BIG if) one does - via some hitherto undevised ingenious experiment which always yields truth - we find that no... in fact everyone is at best ambivalent, but mostly going along with what they think the majority view is.

I'm sure there's a name/concept for this in group dynamics.

Consensus mythology? (I'm just making that up)

A hallmark is that interrogating the group yields one answer, but each individual considered privately will give you a very different answer.

But it's not "group-think" I'm talking about, because that implies a more overt pressure. Rather it emerges in the absence of coordination amongst an implied majority when there exists a loud propaganda message designating some other group a minority.

I think this effect has important implications in the kind of 50:50 + swing elections we've seen over the past few years. For example, in Brexit, a mass of lethargic voters assumed "everyone will vote against" and didn't verify the reality by asking lots of diverse friends. It's not that people are trapped in actual bubbles so much as bubbles of their own mind based on assumptions about those around them.

Sorry, that's probably a long and clumsy way of saying something obvious.

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#86

Post by armchairhacker »

Centralization is better than decentralization in 99% of cases, but the 1% is really important: when the centralized system fails, or is controlled by an adversary (e.g. malicious government).

IMO decentralized internet (and social media and currency) should be possible, routinely tested, and readily-available when the centralized internet fails. But a neutral, trusted, central server will is basically always preferred when it is available.

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#87

Post by neilk »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #29

The point of open protocols is not that there will actually be many providers, but that one could switch providers easily if they do something fishy. It's about the threat, and what can happen on margin. Keeping a sword dangling over the monopolist's head is reasonable.

You are correct. The greatest threat to someone providing a service based on an open protocol is that users might pick up and leave.

Consequently, a service provider will plow enormous resources into differentiating their service, and generating other lock-in effects, so the users find it hard to leave.

A popular open source protocol is actually the perfect playing field for a would-be monopolist.

The monopolist can make their service better and better with cash and execution, but meanwhile the protocol is stuck at a baseline since a varied ecosystem doesn't upgrade itself as quickly. So it is less and less attractive.

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#88

Post by mistermann »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #76
mistermann wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can also be caused by people who think in an imperfect manner. Most people think according to how they have been taught to think, not what is perfect. A critical component of a well designed trap: consider all suggestions that you are trapped in an imperfect methodology to be conspiratorial/etc, and therefore false . Checkmate.

I think I follow you. It's a way to shut down conversation before it's even begun.

Let's just hope that nothing like that ever happens on this planet!

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#89

Post by the_other »

neilk wrote: post #87
Ericson2314 wrote: post #29

The point of open protocols is not that there will actually be many providers, but that one could switch providers easily if they do something fishy. It's about the threat, and what can happen on margin. Keeping a sword dangling over the monopolist's head is reasonable.

You are correct. The greatest threat to someone providing a service based on an open protocol is that users might pick up and leave. Consequently, a service provider will plow enormous resources into differentiating their service, and generating other lock-in effects, so the users find it hard to leave. A popular open source protocol is actually the perfect playing field for a would-be monopolist. The monopolist can…

> A popular open source protocol is actually the perfect playing field for a would-be monopolist.

At first I thought "email seems a good example of this: most people don't want to leave Google, I don't want to leave FastMail"... but then I remembered that I could just leave FastMail and take my email to Google. Which proves the upthread point about the open protocol being a safety net for users.

Can you talk about some examples of monopolised open protocols?

Re: Centralization is inevitable, but decentralization is right behind it

#90

Post by CuriouslyC »

armchairhacker wrote: post #86

Centralization is better than decentralization in 99% of cases, but the 1% is really important: when the centralized system fails, or is controlled by an adversary (e.g. malicious government). IMO decentralized internet (and social media and currency) should be possible, routinely tested, and readily-available when the centralized internet fails. But a neutral, trusted, central server will is basically always preferr…

> Centralization is better than decentralization in 99% of cases

This is way overgeneralizing, and not remotely true for a large swathe of things. Centralized systems are actually less efficient unless the central agent is a party to every interaction due to the nature of the system. If the central agent is only a party by virtue of the imposed structure, you've created overhead, made the system difficult to change, and made it brittle to variance from design assumptions.

Decentralized systems can evolve much more rapidly, can survive catastrophic variance, and are more efficient in a large number of cases.

Centralizing mail delivery works well, centralizing economies or ecosystems does not.

Post reply on HN