3 ms·

It seems like this comment is getting downvoted. For what exactly? If I am wrong about something then point it out.

verdverm 1y ago
The last sentence is most likely, also blockchain is looked down upon here as it has never lived up to the supposed benefits. They come with a host of problems something like the proof-of-authority ledger the PLC uses does not have. Yes, some centralization was exchanged for not being blockchain based, an acceptable tradeoff imho
- supermatt 1y ago
  There are lots of options not using blockchain - I never even mentioned blockchain once. The proof of authority ledger that PLC uses can still be used via canonical resolution of actual decentralised did methods. Right now it’s not a did (decentralised identifier) - it’s just a centralised bluesky plc id masquerading as a did.
  - verdverm 1y ago
    > I never even mentioned blockchain once DHT is effectively synonymous with blockchain if you need to have distributed, permissionless writes. How do you envision the DHT being updated and not being blockchain based? Also, commenting about downvoting will get you more downvotes
    - supermatt 1y ago
      > How do you envision the DHT being updated and not being blockchain based? By being a DHT, not a blockchain? There are many ways for permissionless updates, such as those employed by BEP-44 on mainline DHT (BitTorrent - not blockchain based), IPNS (part of IPFS - also not blockchain based). I don’t really care about the downvotes - I just want people to comment why, because I’ve said little that isn’t true.
      - verdverm 1y ago
        What would you do about sybil attacks? > because I’ve said little that isn’t true You have said more than you realize in how you phrased the sequence of questions, and regardless of truthiness or not, they come off as combative. Another commenter has pointed you towards a discussion where you can find conversations on these topics
        supermatt 1y ago
        > What would you do about sybil attacks? There are lots that have been done to reduce the impact of Sybil attacks on all major DHTs - deterministic node ids, replication, signed payloads, key abuse detection and mitigation, iterative lookups through trusted nodes, etc.
        verdverm 1y ago
        Those complications are why Bluesky chose something simpler for the PLC that gave them the features they needed given the resources they have available to manage this part of the protocol and infra.
        supermatt 1y ago
        Again, and as I said, DHT resolution is just one of many options. As for “the complications”, those “complications” are just software - as implemented in dozens of libs - and already running on hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of nodes on some of the larger DHTs. The “features” they needed were equally solved with did:web using plc.directory - which could absolutely be backed by the PLC transparently.

The last sentence is most likely, also blockchain is looked down upon here as it has never lived up to the supposed benefits. They come with a host of problems something like the proof-of-authority ledger the PLC uses does not have. Yes, some centralization was exchanged for not being blockchain based, an acceptable tradeoff imho

supermatt 1y ago
There are lots of options not using blockchain - I never even mentioned blockchain once. The proof of authority ledger that PLC uses can still be used via canonical resolution of actual decentralised did methods. Right now it’s not a did (decentralised identifier) - it’s just a centralised bluesky plc id masquerading as a did.
- verdverm 1y ago
  > I never even mentioned blockchain once DHT is effectively synonymous with blockchain if you need to have distributed, permissionless writes. How do you envision the DHT being updated and not being blockchain based? Also, commenting about downvoting will get you more downvotes
  - supermatt 1y ago
    > How do you envision the DHT being updated and not being blockchain based? By being a DHT, not a blockchain? There are many ways for permissionless updates, such as those employed by BEP-44 on mainline DHT (BitTorrent - not blockchain based), IPNS (part of IPFS - also not blockchain based). I don’t really care about the downvotes - I just want people to comment why, because I’ve said little that isn’t true.
    - verdverm 1y ago
      What would you do about sybil attacks? > because I’ve said little that isn’t true You have said more than you realize in how you phrased the sequence of questions, and regardless of truthiness or not, they come off as combative. Another commenter has pointed you towards a discussion where you can find conversations on these topics
      - supermatt 1y ago
        > What would you do about sybil attacks? There are lots that have been done to reduce the impact of Sybil attacks on all major DHTs - deterministic node ids, replication, signed payloads, key abuse detection and mitigation, iterative lookups through trusted nodes, etc.
        verdverm 1y ago
        Those complications are why Bluesky chose something simpler for the PLC that gave them the features they needed given the resources they have available to manage this part of the protocol and infra.
        supermatt 1y ago
        Again, and as I said, DHT resolution is just one of many options. As for “the complications”, those “complications” are just software - as implemented in dozens of libs - and already running on hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of nodes on some of the larger DHTs. The “features” they needed were equally solved with did:web using plc.directory - which could absolutely be backed by the PLC transparently.