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

Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

ingrids.space

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 311 posts

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#271

Post by em-bee »

zzo38computer wrote: post #154
thesausageking wrote: post #12

The author's definition of what makes a "decentralized application" is too strong and 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. To me, "decentralized" doesn't mean every user has to run their own node. It means it's an open network, anyone can join, and there's no centralized control / censorship. You can bu…

I run my own server for receiving, but use the ISP's server for sending. I have had no problems. But, yes, that doesn't mean you have to run your own node. However, it should include the possibility to do so.

do you also use your own domain for sending?

i can't see how i would host my own mail server with my domain, but then send emails from that domain via someone else.

the only way i could see that working is to use the ISP/other service as a relay to forward my mails.

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#272

Post by pavlov »

G3rn0ti wrote: post #209
pavlov wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The big elephant is the cybercoins, and it's just a weird time to declare them a failure. It's like no one remembers 2017, this has practically been a carbon copy" Exactly. This has been a re-run of 2017, and that is plenty enough reason to declare them a failure. What happened to all the 2017 projects that raised billions during the last hype cycle based on breathless promises of decentralized wonderlands? They d…

> "DeFi" is bullshit leverage products for speculators No. With Compound, Aave and dydx you have DeFi-Dapps that allow you to borrow Dollars (I.e. stable coins pegged to the dollar) and earn interest between 2-15% APR (there are no savings accounts out there that will get you that rate, at least in Europe with negative interest rates). All apps are integrated in the Coinbase wallet. In contrast to speculation on risi…

"apps that allow you to borrow Dollars (I.e. stable coins pegged to the dollar) and earn interest between 2-15% APR"

The very definition of "bullshit leverage products for speculators". This is a rather safe investment in the same sense that subprime mortgage-backed securities were in 2007.

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#273

Post by em-bee »

atweiden wrote: post #33

Centralization is key to imparting knowledge, establishing law and order, and securing our existence through terraforming the planet on an immense scale — which is what separates humans from animals. Scott Alexander uses the example of the US interstate highway system to defend the type of “centralization” which has been so crucial in humanity’s increasing standard of living [1]: > I like Seeing Like A State as much…

there is a big difference between the interstate highway system and centralized internet applications. the interstate highway system was built by the government (by the people, for the people) and everyone can use it with their own vehicles, and provide services on them for others. so while building the interstate highway itself was centralized, it actually provides the infrastructure for decentralized applications.

conversely, centralized internet applications are not infrastructure for other decentralized applications but they only exist for themselves.

i don't know if the internet highway should be considered centralized (as the backbone is in the hands of a few big players) but the use of that highway is certainly decentralized. the question is rather, can we have a federated bus system, where independent companies integrate their bus timetables so you can conveniently transfer from one to the other, or is greyhound dominating the whole network, refusing to cooperate with competitors?

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#274

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

smichel17 wrote: post #221
0xCMP wrote: 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…

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…

Agreed. After moving away from Gmail about 6 months ago to Namecheap Private Email, I am impressed at how little spam I get. It has SpamAssassin which is quite effective, but the overall spam volume is significantly lower than 10 years ago… and this is an old email address and domain I’m using, not new.

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#275

Post by Zak »

mastax wrote: post #129
3np wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I somehow glanced over this, thanks for pointing it out. This definition suggests that "federated" is strictly equal to "decentralized", which is coincidentally not strictly in conflict with what I wrote (though a very unorthodox definition of federated, as it doesn't imply any federation). Even so, IRC has no business in this list per the authors definition.

> Even so, IRC has no business in this list per the authors definition. The "network" part is arguable, but IRC does not require any pre-ordained nodes, which matches the author's definition. It's a small part of full decentralization, but an important one. Being able to point your Facebook Messenger client at a different server would be a big step.

> Being able to point your Facebook Messenger client at a different server would be a big step.

Interestingly, you used to be able to do the inverse: point your XMPP client at Facebook Messenger. I'm pretty sure they never supported federation, but you could connect clients to multiple servers and have a relatively seamless experience from a single client.

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#276

Post by zzo38computer »

em-bee wrote: post #271
zzo38computer wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run my own server for receiving, but use the ISP's server for sending. I have had no problems. But, yes, that doesn't mean you have to run your own node. However, it should include the possibility to do so.

do you also use your own domain for sending? i can't see how i would host my own mail server with my domain, but then send emails from that domain via someone else. the only way i could see that working is to use the ISP/other service as a relay to forward my mails.

The email address does have my own domain name. This way, responses are sent correctly. The ISP is used as a "smart host" to relay the outgoing messages, while incoming messages come in directly; this is provided as an option when setting up Exim using the package manager.

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#277

Post by ausbah »

cblconfederate wrote: post #5

> Most people Most people don't matter and yeah, they 'll always prefer the prepackaged, "curated", high sugar content. The role of the decentralized web is to provide an infinite-frontier alternative so that ideas can grow outside the pettiness and the boxes of the mainstream. And yes, they do work for that

these ideas only matter if they eventually reach "most people" though right? what's the point if things remain in decentralized land?

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#278

Post by the8472 »

ayyy wrote: post #103
the8472 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Bittorrent could be made usable for 1:1 transfers. The building blocks are there. But you'd have to streamline the process and build a client optimized for that case instead of the more common usage. The main missing piece would be a standardized encryption format. That doesn't really need protocol changes, just a storage-level convention how the data is encrypted before turning it into a torrent.

What do you mean, could be? https://instant.io/ is just one of many webtorrent sites that do this. It's a wonderful use of bittorrent.

Webtorrent is not fully decentralized since webrtc needs signalling servers for each session (you can't even store credentials in a cache and reuse them later) and it doesn't have a DHT since UDP isn't available in browsers.

It's not the same as bittorrent proper.

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#279

Post by the8472 »

halikular wrote: post #64
the8472 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Bittorrent could be made usable for 1:1 transfers. The building blocks are there. But you'd have to streamline the process and build a client optimized for that case instead of the more common usage. The main missing piece would be a standardized encryption format. That doesn't really need protocol changes, just a storage-level convention how the data is encrypted before turning it into a torrent.

We already have SFTP for this.

sftp doesn't do nat hole punching, does it?

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#280

Post by HWR_14 »

StavrosK wrote: post #255
0xCMP wrote: 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…

> 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 How can these two sentences be true at the same time?

My reconciliation:

Spam filtering is very hard. Therefore there are some content based rules and some sender based rules. Google is very good at both of those, which means in this context means accuracy and precision based on content and strictness based on sender. Sender based rules make it hard for spammers to send mail pretending to be from a domain, but does make it harder for anyone to send mail. Hosting your own mail server means hosting the authorization architecture to prove you're not a spammer, which makes it harder.

Post reply on HN