> Ok, so how is this remotely the same as PCs being cheaper? Well because to some people this matters a great deal. Why? Because much of the power held by large

> Ok, so how is this remotely the same as PCs being cheaper? Well because to some people this matters a great deal. Why? Because much of the power held by large companies (and by governments) comes from the fact that they operate and control databases. The key point here is "Some People". But to make meaningful change a majority of people have to switch to a new system. The sad truth is: 90% of people do not care. The best example for this is podcasts. They started out as a decentralized utopia. Self hosted files, self hosted feeds, multiple apps to listen to them, improvements of existing formats (mp3 chapters were not really a thing before podcasts), there were even talks about enabling BitTorrent distribution. Fast forward a few years, now Spotify seems to accumulate most of the podcast universe and a lot of the existing podcast use them as a distribution platform. And their exclusive content is drawing in more and more users. So my question here is: if we have a decentralized system that works but people willingly use a centralized alternative of that, how can you claim that decentralization is remotely popular? You need to address this social issue before coming up with any kind of technology to solve it.