The case for open infrastructure
blog.mediocregopher.com
The case for open infrastructure
1–10 of 35 posts
Re: The case for open infrastructure
#2If DLTs push forward, maybe traditional centralized services will have to keep up.
Smartphones are like thin clients. If you already subscribe to bandwidth, why not compute too?
Re: The case for open infrastructure
#3If DLTs push forward, maybe traditional centralized services will have to keep up. Smartphones are like thin clients. If you already subscribe to bandwidth, why not compute too?
DLT = Distributed Ledger Technology?
If so, I’m curious — how does the amount of compute on these distributed networks compare to the cloud platforms, and what is the overhead resulting from the infrastructure protocol?
I’ve heard numbers to the effect of the global BTC network having a throughput of a couple of dozen transactions per second, for all the song and dance. Is there any hope of such networks realistically becoming compute platforms?
Re: The case for open infrastructure
#4At what point did ICT (horizontal services) become "infrastructure"? I
use quotes, because at this point it is really superstructure in the
sense of Marx.
I think we should be very careful about casually using that word.
Re: The case for open infrastructure
#5Note that Gitea will start adding federation support to their code forge, and at least 3 other projects are dedicated to code forge federation at: https://forum.forgefriends.org
Also a self-hosted alternative to KeyBase is at: https://keyoxide.org (minus the chat parts).
Re: The case for open infrastructure
#6I get the spirit of this article. But one of the key things to consider is the operational overhead of maintaining infra for auxiliary services far outweighs the value it provides. There are a few things like payments, notification, monitoring(logs/metrics etc) startups shouldn't build from scratch/self host anymore, unless they plan to take on the incumbents in those fields.
Re: The case for open infrastructure
#7What the author essentially is asking for are public services. They just want a term to justify not having to think about the million other problems with running such a service. The typical "I'm a computer person, I can solve any problem with just code" thing.
If you want "open" public services, form a co-op or nonprofit to develop the service. Make all users 'members' who fund it. Make both the workers and users the owners. Create a public independent board to oversee it. Put any profit back into the service. The architecture will not matter.
Re: The case for open infrastructure
#8If DLTs push forward, maybe traditional centralized services will have to keep up. Smartphones are like thin clients. If you already subscribe to bandwidth, why not compute too?
DLT = Distributed Ledger Technology? If so, I’m curious — how does the amount of compute on these distributed networks compare to the cloud platforms, and what is the overhead resulting from the infrastructure protocol? I’ve heard numbers to the effect of the global BTC network having a throughput of a couple of dozen transactions per second, for all the song and dance. Is there any hope of such networks realisticall…
I think the general idea is to sell normal compute (think lamba or workers) via some coin or something.
As the computational power on chain is very slow and expensive.
Re: The case for open infrastructure
#9If DLTs push forward, maybe traditional centralized services will have to keep up. Smartphones are like thin clients. If you already subscribe to bandwidth, why not compute too?
DLT = Distributed Ledger Technology? If so, I’m curious — how does the amount of compute on these distributed networks compare to the cloud platforms, and what is the overhead resulting from the infrastructure protocol? I’ve heard numbers to the effect of the global BTC network having a throughput of a couple of dozen transactions per second, for all the song and dance. Is there any hope of such networks realisticall…
> Is there any hope of such networks realistically becoming compute platforms?
Bluntly: no.
Open (e.g. decentralized) networks must solve a unique class of problems, like Byzantine fault tolerance, in some cases censorship resistance, etc. The solutions to those problems necessarily impose performance constraints at the system level that are effectively incompatible with any nontrivial use case.
Re: The case for open infrastructure
#10I like the spirit here.
Any frameworks people like for building stuff with distributed or federated architecture? Thinking about this in relation to how one could build long-lived web services (like bandcamp [0]) that aren't owned by a single entity (or can't be sold at least).