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

Are we decentralized yet?

arewedecentralizedyet.online

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 292 posts

Re: Are we decentralized yet?

#181

Post by yborg »

epcoa wrote: post #163
d4mi3n wrote: post #2

Neat! I'm not surprised at the findings here. BlueSky (for the average user) is pretty much a drop in replacement for Twitter. Despite the smaller total numbers in Mastadon, it's great to see that the ecosystem seems to be successfully avoiding centralization like we've seen in the AT-Proto ecosystem. I suspect that the cost of running AT proto servers/relays is prohibitive for smaller players compared to a Mastadon…

> Despite the smaller total numbers in Mastadon, it's great to see that the ecosystem seems to be successfully avoiding centralization But since essentially no one is using it doesn’t suggest much avoidance of centralization. These factors are not independent. It’s pretty easy to avoid anything when your total user count is a rounding error compared to the alternatives.

Bluesky user count is the same order of magnitude as Mastodon and is centralized. I think your argument is actually that if you are on a minority platform your wants and needs for how that platform operates are irrelevant. I suppose that's true if you aren't on the platform, but I don't think it's true if you are.

Re: Are we decentralized yet?

#182

Post by yborg »

jeffgreco wrote: post #110

Including Threads with Fediverse might have an interesting impact.

Threads barely interchanges with the rest of the Fediverse, it's basically bridged. By this argument you could include Truth Social and Gab, which are directly based on Mastodon source.

Re: Are we decentralized yet?

#183

Post by freeopinion »

bjourne wrote: post #104

So we are not decentralized. Git was a good attempt, but it kind of got centralized around GitHub, GitLab, and other variants. BitTorrent was decentralized, except tracker sites were the natural centralization points. Bitcoin was also decentralized, but still had Coinbase and other sites. Even SMTP is de facto centralized due to the spam problem.

Git is decentralized in exactly the way it was intended to be. I do all my development on my own host. I collaborate with a lot of different remotes. Even when a project insists on using Github, I contribute by forking to my own host, push patches to the forge of my choice, and invite the maintainer to pull from there if they like. A lot of maintainers just mirror to Github and/or Gitlab.

Sure, a lot of people pick one center and stare at it. But there are plenty of centers and that situation is getting better recently. Some even integrate git with ATProto or ActivityPub.

Re: Are we decentralized yet?

#184

Post by jonahx »

saurik wrote: post #117
bjourne wrote: post #104

So we are not decentralized. Git was a good attempt, but it kind of got centralized around GitHub, GitLab, and other variants. BitTorrent was decentralized, except tracker sites were the natural centralization points. Bitcoin was also decentralized, but still had Coinbase and other sites. Even SMTP is de facto centralized due to the spam problem.

Anyone can construct a service like Coinbase, and in fact there are numerous such sites available; at this point, you can even use PayPal! You don't even have to continue using the same one you started with: you can buy Bitcoin with PayPal and then sell it with Coinbase. It seems like a very strange definition of centralized to say that this causes any kind of centralization on Bitcoin...

The link back to the real world is money in your bank account. While Coinbase is not the only market player who can provide that (put money in your bank in exchange for bitcoin), it's the biggest, and so there is (to a degree) de facto centralization. More so given that if Coinbase fell (due to government seizure or similar), it's likely sibling services would fall as well.

Ofc, your bitcoin would still be "safe" and still be "yours" on the chain assuming you owned your wallets directly, but those guarantees would now lack meaning or real world consequences. At least until another link to the real world could be established.

Re: Are we decentralized yet?

#185

Post by DrewADesign »

holler wrote: post #180
DrewADesign wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just doesn't seem to sink in with a lot of people. The very second most people need to think about implementation details, like what instance is connected to what instance and what that means, they're done. It's not like they couldn't understand it if they tried: they don't want to try because they don't care. In fact, they don't want to care. What they care about is interacting with their friends and family and…

spot on, same reason irc never spread to the masses

That’s a solid comparison

Re: Are we decentralized yet?

#186

Post by bjourne »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #143
bjourne wrote: post #104

So we are not decentralized. Git was a good attempt, but it kind of got centralized around GitHub, GitLab, and other variants. BitTorrent was decentralized, except tracker sites were the natural centralization points. Bitcoin was also decentralized, but still had Coinbase and other sites. Even SMTP is de facto centralized due to the spam problem.

> Even SMTP is de facto centralized due to the spam problem. It's important to note that this isn't "you have to be big in order to be able to filter spam". That's not true at all; decentralized anti-spam lists have been a thing for decades and the big sites don't have any significant advantage in filtering spam. It's allegedly that big sites will mark small sites as spam even when they're not, which makes it hard to…

Sure, but how many email users have a reverse DNS entry or even know what that is? DKIM? It is, de facto, beyond the reach of 99.9 % of all email users.

Re: Are we decentralized yet?

#187

Post by saurik »

jonahx wrote: post #184
saurik wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can construct a service like Coinbase, and in fact there are numerous such sites available; at this point, you can even use PayPal! You don't even have to continue using the same one you started with: you can buy Bitcoin with PayPal and then sell it with Coinbase. It seems like a very strange definition of centralized to say that this causes any kind of centralization on Bitcoin...

The link back to the real world is money in your bank account. While Coinbase is not the only market player who can provide that (put money in your bank in exchange for bitcoin), it's the biggest, and so there is (to a degree) de facto centralization. More so given that if Coinbase fell (due to government seizure or similar), it's likely sibling services would fall as well. Ofc, your bitcoin would still be "safe" and…

But, Coinbase is not, actually, the biggest... not by far? Binance is like, 20x larger. And it isn't even as if you need to get dollars for your Bitcoin, in case the United States government decides to go aggro, so you can find someone in another country to convert you out through another currency. If this is our definition of centralized, then it is difficult to believe that anything is decentralized. There are enough numerous legitimate reasons to be angry at Bitcoin -- hell: even numerous legitimate reasons to say it is centralized -- that we shouldn't start making some up.

Re: Are we decentralized yet?

#189

Post by grishka »

d4mi3n wrote: post #2

Neat! I'm not surprised at the findings here. BlueSky (for the average user) is pretty much a drop in replacement for Twitter. Despite the smaller total numbers in Mastadon, it's great to see that the ecosystem seems to be successfully avoiding centralization like we've seen in the AT-Proto ecosystem. I suspect that the cost of running AT proto servers/relays is prohibitive for smaller players compared to a Mastadon…

This is due to different design goals.

Bluesky's architecture was pretty much dictated by the premise that anyone needs to be able to see any post on the entire system, regardless of whether they have any connections with the author. That algorithmic entertainment-style feeds need to exist. You do need that firehose and other expensive infrastructure for that, there's no going around it.

The fediverse, on the other hand, entirely relies on people following each other. Each server only receives and stores data that is relevant to its users. ActivityPub works like an automated email list management system. You follow someone, they start sending you their updates and forwarding any updates from others that they consider relevant, like replies to their posts.

Post reply on HN