Live data from Hacker News

Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

ingrids.space

221–230 of 311 posts

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#221
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't agree that email isn't an example of a decentralized application. She argues that it's not because it's really hard to run your own mail server. I don't think this is a fair characterisation of the article. She argues that email is an example of something that is failing as a decentralised application: Google's power over email is too strong. This is very different from claiming that it isn't an example of…

Agreed and I will add that a huge reason Google is used by so many was very effective spam filtering. A huge reason why hosting your own email is hard? Getting filtered by Google because of the massive amount of spam they are blocking. Spam filtering is a a very difficult thing to do well and Google's implementation was very good, very advanced, and trained on huge amounts of data. Something a normal person could nev…

Anecdote: although I have spamassassin set up to add a header to my email, my filter for moving likely spam into the appropriate folder is currently commented out, because I get so little spam. I get a very small amount at my public GitHub address, and a little more at one address that is in the source code of a FLO (free/libre/open) app I maintain, but it totals maybe one or two emails a month.

Public organizational emails in orgs I've been a part of (e.g. admin@example.com, community@example.com) get a little more spam, largely sales pitches from what appears to be actual humans at shady SEO companies. Maybe 2 a week.

I get way more "legitimate" corporate spam than actual unprompted/cold spam. The most egregious example in recent memory was when I made an online purchase at Bed, Bath, & Beyond, and made sure the "sign me up for the email list" checkbox was not selected. They sent me no fewer than four emails asking if I would like to sign up for their email list, including one titled, "Thanks for signing up for our email list!" (inside: "Just take this one last step to confirm your subscription ").

In conclusion, I perceive unwanted email to be largely a self-inflicted problem at present. For example, someone I know likes to complain about the quantity of email she receives, but also refuses to unsubscribe, because sometimes she sees something interesting in one of the many promotional lists she's on. I also don't understand people who say they're not bothered by advertising, but to each her own.

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#222
post #215
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed and I will add that a huge reason Google is used by so many was very effective spam filtering. A huge reason why hosting your own email is hard? Getting filtered by Google because of the massive amount of spam they are blocking. Spam filtering is a a very difficult thing to do well and Google's implementation was very good, very advanced, and trained on huge amounts of data. Something a normal person could nev…

I'm not convinced Google really solved spam, they're just not afraid to turn the sensitivity on the filter way up even if that means a chunk of legitimate mail gets marked as spam. Most smaller admins seem concerned about correctness and so they don't do this. I think this really sums up Google's M.O. in general.

> Even if that means legitimate mail gets marked as spam

I think that’s “especially as”. Other mail providers are competition, after all.

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#223

> What GitHub does though, is rather more sinister. They tweak the actual development workflow away from email with features like pull requests, and and they lock project data in with features like their issue system. 1) when my project gets PRs, how do I hear about this most of the time? Yep, email 2) Nothing is forcing anyone to use github as their canonical repo. For my project, our canonical repo is self-hosted,…

> avoids us being particularly tied into the github way.

Github and git are very different things, which is often forgotten. Github centralizes ever more functionality that is in any way related to the entirety of the software development process.

Want to set up a popular open source project hosted on your own code forge? Good luck, without the network effects of github your task is way harder.

Luckily there are movements towards decentralization and breaking of this domination with https://forgefed.peers.community and https://fedeproxy.eu

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#224
Think of human during hunter-gather's era and how they were looking at nutrition. Only if they could get a steady source of food, they could leave healthy. As soon as we have that steady source and no famine, look what happened with our food and nutrition.

Same idea with the promises of the early WWW, and now with cryptos, decentralisation, etc. I could not be more agree with the author, while being upset that it is a very dark conclusion.

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#225

This is a really myopic view on uses of crypto and the BitTorrent protocol. There's so much more going on than criminal applications. BitTorrent is used in a lot of settings for data distribution and for software distribution. Saying it's just for pirating reveals the author's laziness. Several of these use-cases are listed in the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent As for crypto, I recommend peo…

This article is laughably bad. I'm not even sure it's worth the time to give a counter response. The BitTorrent comment he made is objectively false and can be proven as such. Tons of game installers use torrents under the hood to distribute their massive game payloads.

Which game installers use torrents?

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#226
post #95

So what's the political solution? Someone has to force interoperability on greedy walled gardens that hold back progress? The idea isn't unlike competition / anti-trust laws. But would it require making new ones?

333 comments and only a handful get the point.

Centralization can happen for technical reasons but 99% of the time is about power and money, where a big company benefits enormously from owning a walled garden.

It was always very political. Feudal-society-vs-democracy level of political.

> The idea isn't unlike competition / anti-trust laws. But would it require making new ones?

Good question. If anti-trust laws were applied to network protocols the same way they are currently applied to all sort of physical goods, it would be already illegal to create walled gardens based on closed protocols (e.g. instant messaging).

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#227
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't agree that email isn't an example of a decentralized application. She argues that it's not because it's really hard to run your own mail server. I don't think this is a fair characterisation of the article. She argues that email is an example of something that is failing as a decentralised application: Google's power over email is too strong. This is very different from claiming that it isn't an example of…

Agreed and I will add that a huge reason Google is used by so many was very effective spam filtering. A huge reason why hosting your own email is hard? Getting filtered by Google because of the massive amount of spam they are blocking. Spam filtering is a a very difficult thing to do well and Google's implementation was very good, very advanced, and trained on huge amounts of data. Something a normal person could nev…

[deleted]

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#228

This is a really myopic view on uses of crypto and the BitTorrent protocol. There's so much more going on than criminal applications. BitTorrent is used in a lot of settings for data distribution and for software distribution. Saying it's just for pirating reveals the author's laziness. Several of these use-cases are listed in the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent As for crypto, I recommend peo…

> As for crypto, I recommend people read about Bitcoin being used for the purposes of sending remittances to start.

I followed your recommendation and this is what I found: bitcoin might, in theory, work for the purpose of sending remittances, but in practice it doesn't.

So, returning to the original question, can cryptocurrencies offer an innovative solution for migrant remittances to developing countries? Yes and no. In theory, cryptocurrencies can really provide an effective and economical channel for money transfers to help alleviate poverty through remittances. However, there are two principle problems. Firstly, coins such as Bitcoin remain too volatile, in fact ten times more volatile than major currencies (Baur & Dimpfl 2021). This means that if migrants were to use such channel they would be exposing themselves to extreme risks. But, more importantly users of bitcoin may find themselves victims of speculative attacks, as the cryptocurrencies’ value remains completely speculatively constructed. Secondly, as with international bank transfers, cryptocurrencies need a bank account to buy and sell it. As explained above, having a bank account is not a given and represents a high barrier to entry for many of the poorest migrants.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/humanrights/2021/04/29/cryptocurrenc...

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#230

To centralize is to share rules and information. Without shared information, humans cannot work with and communicate with one other. The goal of decentralization should be to fix the power imbalance embedded in our current central structures, whether it's Google with email or Github with git. People should instead be incentivized to centralize in their own local communities, i.e. their family, friends, coworkers, loc…

Same thing is true of markets. A market is a space where buyers and sellers find each other. It has to be centralised, otherwise how are they gonna find each other?
Post reply on HN