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

How to self-host all of Bluesky except the AppView (for now)

alice.bsky.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 83 posts

Re: How to self-host all of Bluesky except the AppView (for now)

#31

Post by diggan »

sureglymop wrote: post #23

It's great that you wrote this up! One thing I have found with many open source/selfhostable projects is just how much running them yourself can vary. It can go from a simple compose file with everything included to having to dig for obscure services and piece together how they all form the whole. For example, I recently looked into self hosting Zotero. It is so under documented and complex that there is almost no wa…

> For example, I recently looked into self hosting Zotero. It is so under documented and complex that there is almost no way one could self host that

I've come across this a lot too. But what I've found is that it mostly applies to open source projects that offer a hosted paid version, so it kind of makes sense they'll make the experience slightly worse than it could be (consciously or subconsciously), as it pushes people to their hosted solution. I don't particularly like it though.

Doesn't seem to be the case for Zotero specifically, but your comment reminded me that I've noticed this more often lately.

Re: How to self-host all of Bluesky except the AppView (for now)

#32

Post by half-kh-hacker »

nightpool wrote: post #25
__justplaying wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

didn't say it was cheap!

But why is it required? Do you really need a copy of everyone's data locally? If the only way to self-host bluesky is to have an entire copy of the entire database, that seems like it's really bad from a scaling perspective.

What else would "self-hosting all of Bluesky" mean other than a copy of the entire site? If you just want to participate in the network host a PDS, which only stores your own posts.

Re: How to self-host all of Bluesky except the AppView (for now)

#33

Post by galactus »

nightpool wrote: post #25
__justplaying wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

didn't say it was cheap!

But why is it required? Do you really need a copy of everyone's data locally? If the only way to self-host bluesky is to have an entire copy of the entire database, that seems like it's really bad from a scaling perspective.

Uh, it is not required. You can run only a PDS if you want to self host your data and everything will work.

But it is indeed very cool that you can actually host a relay if you want (for fun, learning, or whatever reason)

Re: How to self-host all of Bluesky except the AppView (for now)

#34

Post by galactus »

jonstaab wrote: post #24
bombcar wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ten terabytes of spinning rust is only $100-$300 or so, that's not bad at all.

My point is not the current size, it's the eventual size if bluesky succeeds. Facebook ingests 100TB/day. Self-hosting a bluesky relay isn't (won't be) a thing.

It could be a thing. Not for individual tinkerers but for companies. The fact that today, with already 14 million users, is still possible for an individual to host it is amazing.

Re: How to self-host all of Bluesky except the AppView (for now)

#35

Post by diggan »

98codes wrote: post #20

This is all academic for me until Bluesky gets the functionality to get an account back onto their main network, for DR if not peace of mind that an "undo" is possible.

Totally understandable. Personally I don't use Bluesky for anything vital, it's just data that the world wouldn't be better/worse without anyways, so I'm gonna go and give it a try even if there is no undo.

I love that people even has the choice, so much better than not even being able to.

Re: How to self-host all of Bluesky except the AppView (for now)

#36

Post by jazzyjackson »

pfraze wrote: post #17
__justplaying wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes it's a SPOF. not sure about the second question, but i do know there are plans to transfer its ownership to an independent foundation

Transferring to an independent org is what we're talking about now, yes. The backstory to PLC is that we picked up the DID standard and looked for an existing registry-method that would satisfy requirements¹. None of them really did. We then surveyed mechanisms for decentralized operation: DHTs, open blockchains, permissioned blockchains, and federated databases. Of them, the two blockchain variants seemed perhaps pr…

Hey pfraze, forgive my ignorance but what role does DID serve that DNS doesn't? My favorite part about bsky is using TXT record to prove that I control my domain for username purposes, what's the downside to just generating a keypair, and using the fingerprint of the public key as my identity? (Maybe with some affordance for key rotation vis a vis KERI*) Not doubting youall weighed every possibility, just wondering what I'm missing

*Key Event Receipt Infrastructure

Re: How to self-host all of Bluesky except the AppView (for now)

#37

Post by jazzyjackson »

nightpool wrote: post #25
__justplaying wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

didn't say it was cheap!

But why is it required? Do you really need a copy of everyone's data locally? If the only way to self-host bluesky is to have an entire copy of the entire database, that seems like it's really bad from a scaling perspective.

"self host an entire copy of all user data" is a pretty cool capability to have, kind of proof that the infrastructure is really open and forkable. you seem to have misunderstood OPs goals. Serving your own data from a personal data server is a much less arduous affair.

Re: How to self-host all of Bluesky except the AppView (for now)

#38

Post by ck2 »

I found it interesting it's almost impossible, very difficult to get real Bluesky stats

This site tries but has limits:

* https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats

They broke 14 million yesterday and it seems to be snowballing now since the election:

* https://bsky.app/profile/jaz.bsky.social/post/3laetwhztdk2x

Re: How to self-host all of Bluesky except the AppView (for now)

#39

Post by sbarre »

diggan wrote: post #31
sureglymop wrote: post #23

It's great that you wrote this up! One thing I have found with many open source/selfhostable projects is just how much running them yourself can vary. It can go from a simple compose file with everything included to having to dig for obscure services and piece together how they all form the whole. For example, I recently looked into self hosting Zotero. It is so under documented and complex that there is almost no wa…

> For example, I recently looked into self hosting Zotero. It is so under documented and complex that there is almost no way one could self host that I've come across this a lot too. But what I've found is that it mostly applies to open source projects that offer a hosted paid version, so it kind of makes sense they'll make the experience slightly worse than it could be (consciously or subconsciously), as it pushes p…

Yeah I tend to use ease of install for community editions of hosted paid open source projects as the leading indicator of how seriously they invest in (and support) their free/community version..

Re: How to self-host all of Bluesky except the AppView (for now)

#40

Post by nightpool »

half-kh-hacker wrote: post #32
nightpool wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why is it required? Do you really need a copy of everyone's data locally? If the only way to self-host bluesky is to have an entire copy of the entire database, that seems like it's really bad from a scaling perspective.

What else would "self-hosting all of Bluesky" mean other than a copy of the entire site? If you just want to participate in the network host a PDS, which only stores your own posts.

Surely there's some middle ground between only hosting your own data and being reliant on another site to keep track of your following / followers and hosting a duplicate copy of the entire network?
Post reply on HN