3 ms·
Let's be selfish for a moment. Mandating decentralization of these services is probably a net good not only for society (and us, because we'll be the ones emplo
by KirinDave 9y ago
Let's be selfish for a moment. Mandating decentralization of these services is probably a net good not only for society (and us, because we'll be the ones employed to do it) by way of distributing more wealth, opportunity and responsibilities to more people.
But it'll also be good from a technical standpoint. We're in desperate need of a wake-up call about the centralized and often legacy, government mandated insecurity of our information infrastructure.
Only by defining a new minimum degree of competence and security for a more distributed infrastructure can we pass through this keyhole without making continuous fraud and theft the new normal.
- humanrebar 9y agoI agree, but I'm also concerned that decentralization could increase the surface area exposed to attack.
- m3rc 9y agoHow?
- _seemethere 9y agoBy decentralizing you have to expose more things for interaction with different services leaving you more entry-points for a potential attack.
- KirinDave 9y agoSure. I submit pretending every interface is external is expensive and painful but perhaps an accurate reflection of reality.
- uoaei 9y agoBake it into the protocol that each connection is regularly confirming the other party's active and passive security measures, and that if one of these tests fails the connection is severed.
- RestlessMind 9y agoAny mandate about decentralization has to come from those with powers to enforce such a mandate (eg. government), and such entities benefit from all the centralization (eg. easy spying on citizens). So while such a mandate would be good for the society, who would enforce it?