3 ms·
That "decentralized" image makes no sense at all. It's essentially the same one as the "centralized" one. What a joke.
by vntok 8y ago
That "decentralized" image makes no sense at all. It's essentially the same one as the "centralized" one. What a joke.
- lucideer 8y agoThe difference is not all nodes are connected to a single central node, some are connected through 2 or more hops. One might argue this is the same as the current web where we have proxies, load balancers, etc. but the difference is the intermediate nodes are users. One could also argue this is the same as tor, but the difference is the technology is more at an application level then at a network level, and additionally that every user is effectively equivalent to someone running an exit node.
- jwilk 8y agoBut they give DNS as an example of a centralized system. Huh?
- lucideer 8y agoYeah that's very odd. I was just referring to the image used.
- falcolas 8y agoOne company is in control of the TLDs, and of the root name servers. That we've had DNS names blacklisted from being served (no matter how distasteful the services provided by those DNS names may be) shows that there is insufficient decentralization of authority over DNS.
- cdoxsey 8y agoAnd he uses DNS as an example of a centralized system, but based on the image, it's a decentralized system. It's a multi-tier system with many sources of truth, and many layers of caching.
- gregknicholson 8y ago> many sources of truth Kinda. Not quite. ICANN decides who controls ".foo". That organisation decides who controls "bar.foo", and so on. You can't just make up a domain name and claim it; someone else has to permit you to have it. So perhaps reading the DNS is decentralised, but writing it is centralised.