5 ms·

The part where it explains why "People don’t want to run their own servers, and never will." is a false statement because there are a few counter-examples seems

The part where it explains why "People don’t want to run their own servers, and never will." is a false statement because there are a few counter-examples seems like it's really missing the point. The vast majority of people don't want to, and indeed, most nerds also don't want to, even if you know some counterexamples.

uncomputation 5y ago
Yeah this attacks a straw man version of the original article. Obviously Moxie did not mean that literally nobody wants to run their own servers, just that one lesson from web2’s success is that very few do and as a result systems will tend towards centralization in the favor of the people who do run their own servers.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  But now you're attacking a straw man version of TFA, which is saying "sure, hardly anyone wants to run their own servers, but enough people do, and that's all you need for a suitably distributed infrastructure".
  - kelnos 5y ago
    Not the parent you're replying to, but I disagree with the assertion in your summary. I don't think the "enough people" here actually is enough. We're talking about a small fraction of a percent of all internet users. I don't see how that could be enough give the non-server-runners the touted privacy, security, censorship-resistance, and data-ownership benefits of decentralization.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      I 100% agree, and said so elsewhere here. I'm just standing up for the claim(s) of TFA being stated and understood clearly.
lovehashbrowns 5y ago
This is one of the reasons I sometimes feel like commenting on the internet is like trying to walk through a minefield. Saying something as simple and obviously-hyperbolic as "everyone loves dogs!" can lead to a whole argument about how many people actually hate dogs, distracting from the original topic. But it can actually get more annoying than that on the internet because accuracy and precision are things. So for example, mentioning a 1TB drive on the internet has the potential for comments to delve into a discussion about marketing and how actually it's not 1TB but XYZ GB. It just feels exhausting.
- serverholic 5y ago
  I came to a similar conclusion recently. Even if you are able to keep a discussion on track there are an infinite number of ways to view the world and it's possible to justify almost every perspective. Take any position on a topic and you'll find tons of blog posts, "studies", etc. that justify it. And the other person doesn't have the time or patience to actually look into what you are saying to see if it's legitimate.
  - mistrial9 5y ago
    great nick! --written on my own server
- Karupan 5y ago
  This is particularly true on HN, at least from what I’ve observed last year. On more than one occasion, I’ll type out a reply, only to close the window in frustration knowing where the conversation will eventually end up.
  - codespin 5y ago
    Good to know I'm not the only one that writes out replies and doesn't post them for this reason
agentdrtran 5y ago
Yes, it was incredibly clear what Moxie meant with that line (and it's been proven over and over) but some of the rounding error of people who like running their own stuff (I'm one of them) take this as a personal attack for some reason.
zrm 5y ago
> The vast majority of people don't want to, and indeed, most nerds also don't want to, even if you know some counterexamples. The point is that things are best designed in such a way that people may run their own servers but not that they must run their own servers. The former is good even for the people who never intend to do it, because it implies that whoever is operating the servers you do use is in a competitive market that anyone can enter without having to overcome a network effect.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Sure, but Moxie's point was that current Blockchain protocols are designed for the latter: you either run your own server, or connect to some platform's server that is exposing whatever data they want over some other protocol. There is no client you can run that can talk to the distributed server network.
- kelnos 5y ago
  The problem is -- referring to Moxie's article here -- that some of the supposedly-decentralized things are already depending on or are fronted by specific centralized services, so even if you do decide to run your own server, it doesn't matter, because those centralized services have become de-facto gatekeepers to the decentralization in the background, and it's difficult (and sometimes impossible) for the average user to replace those. It was very interesting to me to learn that if OpenSea de-lists your NFT, then it effectively ceases to exist. Sure, it's still on the blockchain, but any app that uses OpenSea's platform to list or operate on NFTs (which, turns out, is a lot of them right now) won't see it. This might be fixable, but it's a big red flag to me that these problems already exist, with no proposed solutions.
yosamino 5y ago
I think you are not giving enough credit to the whole argument that André is making. He is not saying > See I found a few people who do run servers, therefore your argument is invalid. His point is: > It is correct that only a tiny percentage of people do run servers. But it is exactly this tiny percentage who make certain projects successful. He then generalizes this observation. To paraphrase: "People don't want to run their own servers" is similar to "People don't want to write their online encylopedia" - true, but not the defining point. In a sense this article doesn't say that the argument "people don't want to run their own servers" is wrong, but that it is the wrong argument.
- blondin 5y ago
  GP got it right. the whole article is fight over semantics that adds very little. i wanna hear about turning phones into servers, not the nick-picking. but yes, he wrote that what Moxie wrote was, and i quote, "factually wrong and sound like mere ideology".
- kelnos 5y ago
  I don't think that's the case. From what I've read, the goal of this web3/crypto stuff is to bring decentralization to the masses. If only a subset of "nerds" want to run servers, that still doesn't cut it.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  But the point from the original Moxie article was petty clear: web3 protocols are designed in a way that is only distributed if everyone runs their own server. You can't access the Blockchain from a client (e.g. a mobile device). You can either run your own server, just for you; or, you can rely on the next Facebook or Amazon to run a node for you to connect to from your mobile device. So, the fact that a few people can and will run their own servers doesn't help the vast majority who will not. Just like the fact that someone is running their own mail server will not allow me to have an email address: I can either run my ownail server, or use Gmail or maybe some smaller provider. And in the past, the vast majority have chosen Gmail, because the email protocol didn't have a client app that could connect to the distributed mail network. Similarly, the vast majority will choose, say, OpenSea if there is no client that can talk directly to the distributed NFT system in the Blockchain. And if everyone is using OpenSea, the Blockchain becomes irrelevant, just like the email standards are quasi-irrelevant for Gmail.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

uncomputation 5y ago

Yeah this attacks a straw man version of the original article. Obviously Moxie did not mean that literally nobody wants to run their own servers, just that one lesson from web2’s success is that very few do and as a result systems will tend towards centralization in the favor of the people who do run their own servers.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
But now you're attacking a straw man version of TFA, which is saying "sure, hardly anyone wants to run their own servers, but enough people do, and that's all you need for a suitably distributed infrastructure".
- kelnos 5y ago
  Not the parent you're replying to, but I disagree with the assertion in your summary. I don't think the "enough people" here actually is enough. We're talking about a small fraction of a percent of all internet users. I don't see how that could be enough give the non-server-runners the touted privacy, security, censorship-resistance, and data-ownership benefits of decentralization.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    I 100% agree, and said so elsewhere here. I'm just standing up for the claim(s) of TFA being stated and understood clearly.

lovehashbrowns 5y ago

This is one of the reasons I sometimes feel like commenting on the internet is like trying to walk through a minefield. Saying something as simple and obviously-hyperbolic as "everyone loves dogs!" can lead to a whole argument about how many people actually hate dogs, distracting from the original topic. But it can actually get more annoying than that on the internet because accuracy and precision are things. So for example, mentioning a 1TB drive on the internet has the potential for comments to delve into a discussion about marketing and how actually it's not 1TB but XYZ GB. It just feels exhausting.

serverholic 5y ago
I came to a similar conclusion recently. Even if you are able to keep a discussion on track there are an infinite number of ways to view the world and it's possible to justify almost every perspective. Take any position on a topic and you'll find tons of blog posts, "studies", etc. that justify it. And the other person doesn't have the time or patience to actually look into what you are saying to see if it's legitimate.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  great nick! --written on my own server
Karupan 5y ago
This is particularly true on HN, at least from what I’ve observed last year. On more than one occasion, I’ll type out a reply, only to close the window in frustration knowing where the conversation will eventually end up.
- codespin 5y ago
  Good to know I'm not the only one that writes out replies and doesn't post them for this reason

agentdrtran 5y ago

Yes, it was incredibly clear what Moxie meant with that line (and it's been proven over and over) but some of the rounding error of people who like running their own stuff (I'm one of them) take this as a personal attack for some reason.

zrm 5y ago

> The vast majority of people don't want to, and indeed, most nerds also don't want to, even if you know some counterexamples. The point is that things are best designed in such a way that people may run their own servers but not that they must run their own servers. The former is good even for the people who never intend to do it, because it implies that whoever is operating the servers you do use is in a competitive market that anyone can enter without having to overcome a network effect.

tsimionescu 5y ago
Sure, but Moxie's point was that current Blockchain protocols are designed for the latter: you either run your own server, or connect to some platform's server that is exposing whatever data they want over some other protocol. There is no client you can run that can talk to the distributed server network.
kelnos 5y ago
The problem is -- referring to Moxie's article here -- that some of the supposedly-decentralized things are already depending on or are fronted by specific centralized services, so even if you do decide to run your own server, it doesn't matter, because those centralized services have become de-facto gatekeepers to the decentralization in the background, and it's difficult (and sometimes impossible) for the average user to replace those. It was very interesting to me to learn that if OpenSea de-lists your NFT, then it effectively ceases to exist. Sure, it's still on the blockchain, but any app that uses OpenSea's platform to list or operate on NFTs (which, turns out, is a lot of them right now) won't see it. This might be fixable, but it's a big red flag to me that these problems already exist, with no proposed solutions.

yosamino 5y ago

I think you are not giving enough credit to the whole argument that André is making. He is not saying > See I found a few people who do run servers, therefore your argument is invalid. His point is: > It is correct that only a tiny percentage of people do run servers. But it is exactly this tiny percentage who make certain projects successful. He then generalizes this observation. To paraphrase: "People don't want to run their own servers" is similar to "People don't want to write their online encylopedia" - true, but not the defining point. In a sense this article doesn't say that the argument "people don't want to run their own servers" is wrong, but that it is the wrong argument.

blondin 5y ago
GP got it right. the whole article is fight over semantics that adds very little. i wanna hear about turning phones into servers, not the nick-picking. but yes, he wrote that what Moxie wrote was, and i quote, "factually wrong and sound like mere ideology".
kelnos 5y ago
I don't think that's the case. From what I've read, the goal of this web3/crypto stuff is to bring decentralization to the masses. If only a subset of "nerds" want to run servers, that still doesn't cut it.
tsimionescu 5y ago
But the point from the original Moxie article was petty clear: web3 protocols are designed in a way that is only distributed if everyone runs their own server. You can't access the Blockchain from a client (e.g. a mobile device). You can either run your own server, just for you; or, you can rely on the next Facebook or Amazon to run a node for you to connect to from your mobile device. So, the fact that a few people can and will run their own servers doesn't help the vast majority who will not. Just like the fact that someone is running their own mail server will not allow me to have an email address: I can either run my ownail server, or use Gmail or maybe some smaller provider. And in the past, the vast majority have chosen Gmail, because the email protocol didn't have a client app that could connect to the distributed mail network. Similarly, the vast majority will choose, say, OpenSea if there is no client that can talk directly to the distributed NFT system in the Blockchain. And if everyone is using OpenSea, the Blockchain becomes irrelevant, just like the email standards are quasi-irrelevant for Gmail.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]