Centralization really is a social problem. Among alternatives, most people will mindlessly choose the most popular one, while extreme popularity of something should instead be a reason to avoid it or at least to be very cautious about it. No decentralized technology is immune to this herd behavior. Even Bitcoin is probably doomed to become dominated and effectively controlled by some popular mining pool or online wal…
The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It
51–60 of 67 posts
Re: The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It
#52Software is the result of business models. Business models are the result of risk management around desired outcomes. Making more money, for example. Making more money is the reason we've had bubbles and new business layers appear. MSPs were the precursor to SaaS, for example. Software sucks because business models must frequently be addressed before customer's needs are addressed. Of course this is a simplification…
Re: The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It
#53"People assume today's consumer has to make a deal with a marketing machine to get stuff for 'free,' even if they're horrified by what happens with their data. Imagine a world where paying for things was easy on both sides." I can't see that friction is the problem. It's easy to implement payment on the web nowadays. The issue is getting people to want to actually pay, rather than going and looking elsewhere for the…
I think that the problem isn't paying per se, but rather just the inconvenience. After all people already pay plenty for their web connection. Something like Flattr might be the solution.
Which is why something like Brave is so exciting.
Re: The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It
#54Software is the result of business models. Business models are the result of risk management around desired outcomes. Making more money, for example. Making more money is the reason we've had bubbles and new business layers appear. MSPs were the precursor to SaaS, for example. Software sucks because business models must frequently be addressed before customer's needs are addressed. Of course this is a simplification…
Re: The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It
#55Software is the result of business models. Business models are the result of risk management around desired outcomes. Making more money, for example. Making more money is the reason we've had bubbles and new business layers appear. MSPs were the precursor to SaaS, for example. Software sucks because business models must frequently be addressed before customer's needs are addressed. Of course this is a simplification…
> To "reinvent" the "web" (or what I call the Intercloud), business models must be removed from the equation.
This goes into my "and everyone gets a pony" set of solutions.
Re: The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It
#56 “The web is already decentralized,” Mr. Berners-Lee said.
“The problem is the dominance of one search engine, one
big social network, one Twitter for microblogging. We
don’t have a technology problem, we have a social
problem.”
One that can, perhaps, be solved by more technology.
This is a very confused article. It's a social problem! But we're going to solve it with technology!I'm sure Tim Berners-Lee has a great understanding of the situation, but since it didn't come across in the article let's try to build our own description of the problem here in the comments. To do this we'll go through the most interesting projects in the "fix the web" space and steal their key insights.
# Camlistore - All Your Data Should Be in One Place
I probably have important data in two dozen different places. Google, FB, Dropbox, Reddit, GitHub, Mint, Stack Exchange, Amazon, etc. This is crazy!
All my personal data should go into a personal data store. I'm not sure how we'll ever approach a sane system without this step. Camlistore is all about making that data store.
More info here:
https://camlistore.org/doc/overview " Camlistore is your personal storage system for life. "
# Urbit - Everyone Should Have a Name
Right now only techies own their names. We do it in two ways -- the total ownership way where we make a private key and identify ourselves with it, and the "technically renting but basically ownership" way where we buy a domain. You can reach me at @ today, tomorrow, and probably for the rest of my life.
Most non-techies get by with Gmail and a FB page. This isn't the worst, but it's not ideal.
And for every different service we use we get a different name. I don't want 20 names! I want to use my name! (Or sometimes one of my pseudonyms, which Urbit has first-class support for).
In Urbit everyone has a name[1]. Even better, this name maps to their computer, so if I know my friends name I can connect to their computer -- the foundation of getting an actual peer-to-peer network back from the current mess.
[1] Connected to a private key and human readable! But often silly, eg: ~gumdob-tumlub
# Sandstorm - Everyone Needs a Server
Servers are necessary to be real internet citizens. I think this is basically self-explanatory. If your entire internet presence disappears when you close your laptop lid you're basically beyond helping, and will always need some kind of walled-garden to watch out for you.
The problem is that Linux servers are a pain to host. With Sandstorm you can set up a server with one click. You can install apps with one click. This is . . . basically such an obviously good idea it's hard to find more to say about it.
If there are more interesting projects in this space please mention them, I'm going back to coding:)
EDIT: I wasn't really sure what to write for a conclusion, but now I've thought of one: The web evolved, what we get next will be _built_. This is very exciting.
Re: The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It
#57It's simple: make computers secure enough that connecting one to the net won't imply being hacked within a few days (minutes in some cases). Re-enable mail servers to be run from home connections, make them dead simple to set up and bullet proof. And so on. You can only wind this clock back step-by-step, a reboot will break too much that we have come to depend on. It all went wrong at NAT, we were supposed to be peer…
You remind me of that episode of Star Trek when the crew is trying to figure out how to stop an asteroid impact and Q goes "It's simple! Just change the gravitational constant of the universe".
Re: The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It
#58Software is the result of business models. Business models are the result of risk management around desired outcomes. Making more money, for example. Making more money is the reason we've had bubbles and new business layers appear. MSPs were the precursor to SaaS, for example. Software sucks because business models must frequently be addressed before customer's needs are addressed. Of course this is a simplification…
Wat? > To "reinvent" the "web" (or what I call the Intercloud), business models must be removed from the equation. This goes into my "and everyone gets a pony" set of solutions.
Re: The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It
#59Software is the result of business models. Business models are the result of risk management around desired outcomes. Making more money, for example. Making more money is the reason we've had bubbles and new business layers appear. MSPs were the precursor to SaaS, for example. Software sucks because business models must frequently be addressed before customer's needs are addressed. Of course this is a simplification…
Re: The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It
#60Efforts towards thorough decentralization are easy when dealing with static resources(see ipfs, torrents etc). Issues creep up when you need to support dynamic resources, which rely on : a) user input b) stateful server With b), a will feel more comfortable sharing data when there's trust built up in b). This seems to go directly against legacy-web as centralization was the solution to the trust problem. With new tec…
I think IPFS is already sufficient for that, and indeed someone has already built a chat application.
https://github.com/haadcode/orbit
The underlying IPFS event database implementation:
https://github.com/haadcode/orbit-db
I think that there's something related to subscribing to changes without any central point of failure that's not currently possible with the IPFS implementations, but I also think that this is planned.