3 ms·

Yes, that's it. With federated networks, you still rely on another party — the server you connect to. With decentralized networks, you are a part of the thing e

by runiq 11y ago

Yes, that's it. With federated networks, you still rely on another party — the server you connect to. With decentralized networks, you are a part of the thing everyone else relies on.

simoncion 11y ago
Two things: 1) In a decentralized network where you are also the client, you also usually rely on another party: the party that contains the resource you wish to access. Not that many decentralized networks give every node a complete copy of all of the data in the network. 2) In a federated network with open federation (Tor, XMPP, email, etc...), you can choose to become a server in that network and be a part of the thing that everyone else relies on. I'm still having trouble seeing the essential distinction between the two. Is the assertion that "decentralized" networks force you to be a server in the network, whereas federated networks leave the choice up to you?
- natrius 11y ago
  In a federated network, your identity is tied to your server. If you have a domain name, sometimes you can have portable identities that piggyback on DNS. This is a terrible solution for normal people. The cost of switching servers is high. Decentralized systems have cryptographic identities. If you want to use a different client or a different server that participates in the network while you're offline, just fire up the new one and give it access to your identity via your private key or signing a new key. Low switching costs are the key to progress on a network. It's why browsers have gotten so good. Similarly, competition will make the clients for decentralized networks improve rapidly, unlike XMPP or email.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > In a federated network, your identity is tied to your server. Untrue. TextSecure/Signal is a federated system. [0] IDs have always been and are -currently- tied to a user's phone number. [1] If you demand, I'm sure that I can dig up more examples, but that's the first thing that came to mind at $WAY_TOO_FUCKING_EARLY in the morning. [0] The server software is open source, but only trusted operators are permitted to federate with the official TS servers. However, anyone is 100% free to stand up their own TS network (even if it's a single server) and distribute their own patched TS/Signal clients that use that unofficial TS network. [1] There is ongoing work (that's probably nearly completed) to move IDs from a phone number to something that makes multi-device-but-a-single-user accounts work. I get the impression that it's coming along rather nicely, but haven't checked out the Github repo in quite a while.

by runiq 11y ago

Yes, that's it. With federated networks, you still rely on another party — the server you connect to. With decentralized networks, you are a part of the thing everyone else relies on.

simoncion 11y ago

Two things: 1) In a decentralized network where you are also the client, you also usually rely on another party: the party that contains the resource you wish to access. Not that many decentralized networks give every node a complete copy of all of the data in the network. 2) In a federated network with open federation (Tor, XMPP, email, etc...), you can choose to become a server in that network and be a part of the thing that everyone else relies on. I'm still having trouble seeing the essential distinction between the two. Is the assertion that "decentralized" networks force you to be a server in the network, whereas federated networks leave the choice up to you?

natrius 11y ago
In a federated network, your identity is tied to your server. If you have a domain name, sometimes you can have portable identities that piggyback on DNS. This is a terrible solution for normal people. The cost of switching servers is high. Decentralized systems have cryptographic identities. If you want to use a different client or a different server that participates in the network while you're offline, just fire up the new one and give it access to your identity via your private key or signing a new key. Low switching costs are the key to progress on a network. It's why browsers have gotten so good. Similarly, competition will make the clients for decentralized networks improve rapidly, unlike XMPP or email.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > In a federated network, your identity is tied to your server. Untrue. TextSecure/Signal is a federated system. [0] IDs have always been and are -currently- tied to a user's phone number. [1] If you demand, I'm sure that I can dig up more examples, but that's the first thing that came to mind at $WAY_TOO_FUCKING_EARLY in the morning. [0] The server software is open source, but only trusted operators are permitted to federate with the official TS servers. However, anyone is 100% free to stand up their own TS network (even if it's a single server) and distribute their own patched TS/Signal clients that use that unofficial TS network. [1] There is ongoing work (that's probably nearly completed) to move IDs from a phone number to something that makes multi-device-but-a-single-user accounts work. I get the impression that it's coming along rather nicely, but haven't checked out the Github repo in quite a while.