4 ms·
I really don't understand how you can flatly conclude that "it doesn't work", based only on the gossiping nature of SSB. Gossip networks indeed don't scale ver
by Confiks 7y ago
I really don't understand how you can flatly conclude that "it doesn't work", based only on the gossiping nature of SSB.
Gossip networks indeed don't scale very well when not all participants want to communicate with each other (perhaps simplified as "don't already have a social graph connection"). But nothing in the example of kernel development necessitates to involve the entirety of the world.
Gossiping can be done over a medium that inherently reaches only an interested subset of people, either by self-selection or moderation. Trivially, you could start a verifiable gossip network on top of the kernel development mailing list, where most interested people have subscribed themselves.
SSB instead implements pub servers, which can be designated to contain gossip with a common topic. If and when gossiping becomes inefficient, you simply shouldn't continue to gossip indiscriminately; centralize and federate a bit, but preferably don't become reliant on a central logistical point.
- cjbprime 7y agoThe post talks about replacing the Linux kernel's use of email (so, e.g. the linux-kernel mailing list) with this new solution. linux-kernel has hundreds of thousands of subscribers and thousands of posters, all of whom are being given (according to this post) a full and complete copy of everything non-code related to its development. I don't think it would work, at least while maintaining the same "anyone can post to the list" guarantees we have today. And I think it's important to say that it wouldn't work, so that people don't think the job of decentralizing open source communities has a substrate solution in-hand in SSB.