3 ms·
> In reality, server-based protocols such as HTTP/DNS are insufficient for decentralization That seems to be true but I’m unsure as to why. What’s your take?
by oldtail 7y ago
> In reality, server-based protocols such as HTTP/DNS are insufficient for decentralization
That seems to be true but I’m unsure as to why. What’s your take?
- mindslight 7y ago1. A name points to a single authority for a resource. 2. Even worse, the single authority is bound to a single (logical) authoritative server. Using pubkeys for names, like Freenet or IPNS, solves (2) but not (1). Which does allow content to be wholly retrieved from peers (a massive step up!), but still relies on a single authority. So I would think that well-known authorities will still crop up, centralize, and abuse market inefficiency. Although much easier to fork, so more pressure to behave (imagine being able to say hey use my faceboot alternative at http://newsite.com http://newsite.com, and have all the content automatically there, without the hostile software!). I've been thinking about this for quite some time, and ideally (1) would be solved as well. The only system I've seen in the wild that attempts to distribute authority itself is Camlistore's "claims". But the idea being that a "far" link should truly be changeable by the end user, rather than to a singular authority.