3 ms·
Their definition seems less strong and different than portrayed in your comment. Below is the definition from the article. "To clarify what I mean by decentral
by tssva 5y ago
Their definition seems less strong and different than portrayed in your comment. Below is the definition from the article.
"To clarify what I mean by decentralised: applications whose main purpose is fulfilled as part of a network, where that network is not reliant on any preordained nodes. Decentralised applications are also known as “federated”. There is also a more specific term “distributed”, also known as “peer to peer”. I won’t cover the distinction with the more specific terms because it’s not relevant here. I use the word application in a looser sense, to also cover protocols and specifications."
- 3np 5y agoI somehow glanced over this, thanks for pointing it out. This definition suggests that "federated" is strictly equal to "decentralized", which is coincidentally not strictly in conflict with what I wrote (though a very unorthodox definition of federated, as it doesn't imply any federation). Even so, IRC has no business in this list per the authors definition.
- mastax 5y ago> Even so, IRC has no business in this list per the authors definition. The "network" part is arguable, but IRC does not require any pre-ordained nodes, which matches the author's definition. It's a small part of full decentralization, but an important one. Being able to point your Facebook Messenger client at a different server would be a big step.
- Taek 5y agoThat's not decentralized, that's just open source.
- Zak 5y ago> Being able to point your Facebook Messenger client at a different server would be a big step. Interestingly, you used to be able to do the inverse: point your XMPP client at Facebook Messenger. I'm pretty sure they never supported federation, but you could connect clients to multiple servers and have a relatively seamless experience from a single client.