> Git is not truly decentralized, in the sense that you still need to provide a few specific remote hosts, all of which could disappear due to law enforcement.

> Git is not truly decentralized, in the sense that you still need to provide a few specific remote hosts, all of which could disappear due to law enforcement. Some time ago, I and a friend worked together on a project in a place where there was no centralized git server; both of us ran git-daemon (https://git-scm.com/docs/git-daemon https://git-scm.com/docs/git-daemon) on our desktops, and we often pulled from the other as we developed each feature. It was fun, and worked really well. Git is truly decentralized, in that each developer has a full copy of the code and its history, and any of these copies can be used as the source for other copies. > In a true decentralized system (e.g. Bittorrent, Bitcoin, etc.) it's practically impossible to delete something, and there would be plenty of accessible copies of data in jurisdictions that are out of reach of any single country's law enforcement, and even out of reach of the original creator to delete, so the original creator's government would not be able to force them to delete it. That's how it works with git; everyone who cloned the repository to their desktop (for instance, to develop and contribute a patch) has a full copy of the history up to that moment, and that copy is out of the reach of both other jurisdictions and the original creator. There's no way to even know how many of them there are, much less who has them.