3 ms·

> centralization is a feature, not a bug This is not what the original article says. Here's the first conclusion: > We should accept the premise that people w

by zrm 5y ago

> centralization is a feature, not a bug This is not what the original article says. Here's the first conclusion: > We should accept the premise that people will not run their own servers by designing systems that can distribute trust without having to distribute infrastructure. In other words, centralized trust is a bug, but that's a different thing than centralized servers. The problem with existing NFTs is that they not only don't have decentralized servers, they also don't have decentralized trust. They're just not what they claim to be at all. I would also point out that "centralized" isn't a binary thing. Having literally everyone run their servers is not really what anybody wants, but neither is having one company run a single server for everyone in the world, which isn't really what happens. Even with a "centralized service" like Facebook, they have multiple servers distributed all over the world. And if the servers didn't have to be trusted, they also wouldn't all have to be run by a single company. Having a billion servers for a billion users is not what anybody wants, but we already have a thousand servers for a billion users. And if the servers are not to be trusted anyway, why do we need them all to be run by the same entity? Full atomization rarely works. Federation works.

jonnycomputer 5y ago
>The problem with existing NFTs is that they not only don't have decentralized servers, they also don't have decentralized trust. They're just not what they claim to be at all. This. And take away the techno-libertarian glamour, it becomes just another technology that might have useful applications, or might be a huge waste of time, resources, and increases complexity and decreases transparency.
syntheweave 5y ago
The fact that BitTorrent has worked for decades without centralizing, and likely never will centralize, stands in quiet opposition to the entire "centralization is inevitable" line of thinking. The trackers, the obvious centralizing force, have always remained content-focused, rather than making the transition to platform control. Trackers are roughly federated, as you note; there are a lot of nodes, but relatively few trackers. And I believe most blockchain style systems would shake out similarly. The authentic dev communities building blockchain tech are throwing their weight behind the idea that they will in time transition towards technical solutions, having already set a course for the social solution. So from their end, this criticism is always technical in nature. The initial source of trust is going to be in mathematical realities guaranteeing certain outcomes: if not cryptography, then tokenomics. Of course there are a huge number of "P.T. Barnums" who have jumped ahead to create solutions today, and these solutions tend to platformize. That's the discontinuity making it a circus.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  > The fact that BitTorrent has worked for decades without centralizing, and likely never will centralize, stands in quiet opposition to the entire "centralization is inevitable" line of thinking. Except for all the centralized points you'd be correct. BitTorrent requires bootstrap nodes. While these can be specified in a torrent file but many clients have some hard coded values for bootstrap nodes. If bootstrap nodes are unavailable and a torrent doesn't contain new values a BitTorrent client can't do much. Then there's finding content which doesn't just magically happen. Torrent search engines exist because BT doesn't have a built in search system like other P2P networks. Finally there's the central locations where clients are developed and distributed. BT clients don't just manifest on people's computers. They don't magically update themselves. Cryptobros talk of decentralization as if shit just exists in a luminiferous ether. You just wish hard enough and things manifest on your system from it. Centralization doesn't automatically mean Facebook controls everything. Stuff comes together at locii and those are by nature central in a network. They can be disrupted, blocked, or just disappear and then the network falls apart.

by zrm 5y ago

jonnycomputer 5y ago

>The problem with existing NFTs is that they not only don't have decentralized servers, they also don't have decentralized trust. They're just not what they claim to be at all. This. And take away the techno-libertarian glamour, it becomes just another technology that might have useful applications, or might be a huge waste of time, resources, and increases complexity and decreases transparency.

syntheweave 5y ago

The fact that BitTorrent has worked for decades without centralizing, and likely never will centralize, stands in quiet opposition to the entire "centralization is inevitable" line of thinking. The trackers, the obvious centralizing force, have always remained content-focused, rather than making the transition to platform control. Trackers are roughly federated, as you note; there are a lot of nodes, but relatively few trackers. And I believe most blockchain style systems would shake out similarly. The authentic dev communities building blockchain tech are throwing their weight behind the idea that they will in time transition towards technical solutions, having already set a course for the social solution. So from their end, this criticism is always technical in nature. The initial source of trust is going to be in mathematical realities guaranteeing certain outcomes: if not cryptography, then tokenomics. Of course there are a huge number of "P.T. Barnums" who have jumped ahead to create solutions today, and these solutions tend to platformize. That's the discontinuity making it a circus.

giantrobot 5y ago
> The fact that BitTorrent has worked for decades without centralizing, and likely never will centralize, stands in quiet opposition to the entire "centralization is inevitable" line of thinking. Except for all the centralized points you'd be correct. BitTorrent requires bootstrap nodes. While these can be specified in a torrent file but many clients have some hard coded values for bootstrap nodes. If bootstrap nodes are unavailable and a torrent doesn't contain new values a BitTorrent client can't do much. Then there's finding content which doesn't just magically happen. Torrent search engines exist because BT doesn't have a built in search system like other P2P networks. Finally there's the central locations where clients are developed and distributed. BT clients don't just manifest on people's computers. They don't magically update themselves. Cryptobros talk of decentralization as if shit just exists in a luminiferous ether. You just wish hard enough and things manifest on your system from it. Centralization doesn't automatically mean Facebook controls everything. Stuff comes together at locii and those are by nature central in a network. They can be disrupted, blocked, or just disappear and then the network falls apart.