Live data from Hacker News

Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

ingrids.space

31–40 of 311 posts

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#31

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…

Calling decentralised software centralised because companies built good defaults on top is a fallacy. Email, the web and torrents are definitely success story.

I don't like cryptocurrencies (those who are unbacked and resource hungry, I like the tech behind) but bringing payments in the software world and out of financial gatekeepers could exactly the missing piece of the puzzle to have even more working decentralised apps.

Recognising this doesn't help with criticising capitalism, I guess.

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#32

Is there even a single decentralized app that is mainstream? BitTorrent is great but I wouldn’t exactly call it mainstream. I do wish more sites used it for downloads though. I haven’t sat down and researched this, but an argument could be made that inherently a centralized app, who is trusted, available and resilient, will always be superior. Any thoughts?

Blizzard's game launcher (use to?) downloads the games via Torrent. E.g. starcraft II, world of war craft, etc. That's pretty damn mainstream.

A lot of older networked games were, probably some modern ones too. One player hosts the game (either picked automatically by the match making system, or by running a game server listed by a index server), and everyone else connects to them. Call of duty, counter strike, starcraft, etc.

As other people mentioned the internet, also texting and telephones, but the peers in this example are really big. I think some of the bank transfer stuff is also a "distributed" system with big peers.

FireChat (distributed chat over wifi) was reasonably mainstream in Hong Kong for awhile: https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/firechat-off-the-grid-messag...

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#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 as anyone else (though see the caveats in Part VII of my review for some criticisms). But it worries me that everyone analyzes the exact same three examples of the failures of top-down planning: Soviet collective farms, Brasilia, and Robert Moses. I’d like to propose some other case studies:

> 3. The interstate highway system: 1950s army bureaucrats with a Prussia fetish decided America needed its own equivalent of the Reichsautobahn. The federal government came up with a Robert-Moses-like plan to spend $114 billion over several decades to build a rectangular grid of numbered giant roads all up and down the country, literally paving over whatever was there before, all according to pre-agreed federal standards. The public had so little say in the process that they started hundreds of freeway revolts trying to organize to prevent freeways from being built through their cities; the government crushed these when it could, and relocated the freeways to less politically influential areas when it couldn't.

Put simply, centralization is in our DNA. It is fundamentally how humans have become the planet’s most fearsome apex predator. Nature is very fearsome, of course, but the power to shape nature via concentrating power into the hands of the most capable in a meritocratic fashion is even moreso.

It’s not surprising centralized services dominate their decentralized counterparts. Bitcoin, however, is interesting here because the S&P is actually down since 1970 as measured in gold [2] — rather astonishing, given the S&P tracks some of the most powerful (centralized) human organizations in existence. It appears despite our best efforts, sometimes elements which exist outside of our political and legal grip can outperform even the greatest man-made feats.

Satoshi Nakamoto used clever cryptography to replicate a precious metal in digital form, as an attempt to pull humans away from centralized government monies. That was 2009, though, and people have since gotten too caught up in the glittery financial rewards aspect of Bitcoin to appreciate it on this level.

> Bringing fresh competition against Chrome isn’t really an option either. Modern browser rendering engines are so complex (especially when you have to implement all of Chrome’s undocumented quirks too), that even Microsoft gave up trying. And if you’re thinking of making your own system that eschews the web standards, good luck trying to bootstrap the entire web’s worth of content

The Gemini protocol is getting there. I recommend Lagrange [3]. Drew Devault hosts some of his blog articles on Gemini.

[1]: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/contra-weyl-on-technoc...

[2]: http://pricedingold.com/sp-500/

[3]: https://gmi.skyjake.fi/lagrange/

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#34
> No, the solution has to be political. That’s uncomfortable for me, as it probably is for you too. Software I can do, politics though? That’s hard.

I've been noodling this point from the political end for academic reasons of late.

Conclusion: society is an 80/20 problem.

- 80% geared toward stability (why I want actual companies with heft doing things like bridges and hardware &c). Socialized things.

- 20% geared toward innovation. Risk taking. Capitalism. Experimentation of the "Hold my beer" variety.

The tension between these two cannot and should not be resolved; rather, graciously supported.

I submit that TFA makes the point that the 80% bullies the 20% a bit too much. Government's role is arguably to be an honest referee, except that the 80% tends to have the loot in addition to the numbers.

I'd like to rally more around the FSF to do more to preserve and protect open culture. Takes leadership, business chops, and patience.

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#36

All of the mentioned things work just fine. In life, nothing is perfect. For example, I can't use a CPU based on an open ISA as my daily driver. Does that mean that CPUs "don't work"? Of course not. The fact that something is used for illegal purposes means that it doesn't work? Does LSD "not work"? The fact that something is hard to set up or maintain mean that it doesn't work? Does Linux not work? Do airplanes not…

I think the idea of 'work' is not in a technical sense but in a business and social sense: does it see success at a large scale? As things get larger, they get harder to judge, so asking that about Linux and all airplanes and open source ISAs is kind of irrelevantly difficult, whereas it's pretty easy to talk about Matrix 'not working': I don't use it, my school doesn't use it, etc. It hasn't seen widespread adoption and success. To restate the OP with this definition, decentralized applications that do 'work' (see widespread success) are all 'owned' by some unknowably large corporation (Google for email, GitHub for Git, etc) in a way that emulates centralized applications (the restriction of traditional decentralized freedoms talked about in the article). Out of this, the post makes the point that if we see decentralized systems as 'good', then we have to face this as a failure of the 'free market' and try to think of or move to something better.

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#37

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…

Protocols like e-mail, Mastodon and Matrix where the server-to-server protocol is decentralized/peer-to-peer but clients interact with the network through designated servers are generally considered "federated" (which can be either considered as distinct from or a subset of "decentralized")

So the author seems to take "decentralized" here to mean "fully decentralized and peer-to-peer", which is indeed an unconventionally strong definition. But later on, they mention IRC, which is centralized by any definition... Actually, the author doesn't seem to be working from a strong definition at all and they seem to have given this very shallow thought and research.

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#38
If tech were an industry that required no regulation at all, then it would really be the only such industry. The fact that regulation is necessary should be entirely unsurprising.

All major countries have discovered that extensive regulatory regimes are necessary to keep the free market in check. It isn't at all unusual that, as the article states, tech would require similar regulations to promote fairness, openness, and competition.

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#39
post #10

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…

Also the author laments that bittorrent is not used for 1:1 transfers. Bittorrent's strength is in distributing bandwidth for popular files. Direct file transfers between people who know each other isn't really its target. So i feel that's a pretty unfair criticism. You don't always need to take over the world to be succesful. Its fine to have a niche and just do that really well.

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.

Re: Why Decentralised Applications Don’t Work

#40
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's the problem with 99% of articles about decentralized/federated/etc systems. Nobody can agree on what properties they want and everyone ends up talking past each other.

Exactly that is both the strength and the weakness. The strength consists in the inability of any one party to dominate the network. The weakness is the noise and ineffectiveness of communication.

I think you miss my point.

Whether or not its possible for one party to dominate the network is one of the potential properties of a "distributed" system that people cannot agree on if its required in the definition.

For example, napster, TOR and IRC are arguably "distributed" systems where there is a central party that controls the network.

Post reply on HN