4 ms·

"Decentralized infrastructure is needed. " There is absolutely nothing I can think of more important than this. There's room for companies, there's room for r

"Decentralized infrastructure is needed. " There is absolutely nothing I can think of more important than this. There's room for companies, there's room for restricted centralised services - but in my humble opinion the core services should be managed and run by the people. We are capable of doing it, if we're not - it's time to learn. Interesting place to start: http://maidsafe.net/ http://maidsafe.net/

read 12y ago
"Only true peer-to-peer systems that need as little centralized elements as possible can survive." I'm not sure how to interpret statements like this. Decentralization seems ideal. But some of the most successful services so far either begun or are centralized, not decentralized. If I'm not mistaken, the electric and water utilities, Google, and Facebook are all centralized for example. On the other hand, other services like email and the web (excluding DNS) are decentralized. Is the intention behind this idea that control over those services shouldn't be centralized, while pooling resources could be ok, depending on the service involved?. I'm not saying it's possible to remove control in a centralized service, but I am saying that there is a distinction. A blanket statement that "centralized services can't survive" would seem incorrect, and the existing statement of "as little centralized elements" implies that "as little" in the relative sense will be equal to little in the absolute sense, which might not be true. It could be that "little" practically equals centralization. The reason such a misconception is dangerous is that one might put their efforts in designing a fully decentralized service that isn't adopted. Good design is often hard in that it challenges your assumptions in ways you hadn't originally anticipated.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Everything seems to start centralized, and become more decentralized in the long run. That's because it's easier to build things "in-house" first, and it's also simpler from ca technological point of view. P2P systems need to build communities that can take advantage of the technology, too, otherwise they won't be very effective.
  - Liesmith 12y ago
    You know how p2p systems can be more effective? By not being p2p systems, and instead being centralized. It's not some kind of natural progression, it's an evolutionary process. Centralization gives you control, reactivity, and all kinds of good things. Decentralization makes you resilient during destructive upheavals that kill centralized competitors. We're gonna end up with a lot of both.
    - hitchhiker999 12y ago
      That's a great point, however you must take into account the crowd-innovation aspect. Decentralisation allows for a great deal more creativity to 'eventually' bubble to the surface (in a perfect world ;))
oldmanjay 12y ago
I would love a list of the substantive differences between "the people" and the human beings currently running the things you believe should belong to "the people" I can think of one big one, in that the human beings currently running said services have at least some idea of the mechanics of performing the required duties.
- hitchhiker999 12y ago
  So you're trying to argue that because human beings are behind everything, it's basically the same? Are you suggesting an open-source backed community developing a project works the same way as Facebook does? While I've got you here, could you explain why you felt that was a salient point to make - I'm not being facetious, i would truly like to understand your deeper reasoning.
ap22213 12y ago
Decentralized infrastructure would be interesting. But, honestly, I can't even access the most important data (and information and knowledge) on centralized infrastructure.

read 12y ago

"Only true peer-to-peer systems that need as little centralized elements as possible can survive." I'm not sure how to interpret statements like this. Decentralization seems ideal. But some of the most successful services so far either begun or are centralized, not decentralized. If I'm not mistaken, the electric and water utilities, Google, and Facebook are all centralized for example. On the other hand, other services like email and the web (excluding DNS) are decentralized. Is the intention behind this idea that control over those services shouldn't be centralized, while pooling resources could be ok, depending on the service involved?. I'm not saying it's possible to remove control in a centralized service, but I am saying that there is a distinction. A blanket statement that "centralized services can't survive" would seem incorrect, and the existing statement of "as little centralized elements" implies that "as little" in the relative sense will be equal to little in the absolute sense, which might not be true. It could be that "little" practically equals centralization. The reason such a misconception is dangerous is that one might put their efforts in designing a fully decentralized service that isn't adopted. Good design is often hard in that it challenges your assumptions in ways you hadn't originally anticipated.

higherpurpose 12y ago
Everything seems to start centralized, and become more decentralized in the long run. That's because it's easier to build things "in-house" first, and it's also simpler from ca technological point of view. P2P systems need to build communities that can take advantage of the technology, too, otherwise they won't be very effective.
- Liesmith 12y ago
  You know how p2p systems can be more effective? By not being p2p systems, and instead being centralized. It's not some kind of natural progression, it's an evolutionary process. Centralization gives you control, reactivity, and all kinds of good things. Decentralization makes you resilient during destructive upheavals that kill centralized competitors. We're gonna end up with a lot of both.
  - hitchhiker999 12y ago
    That's a great point, however you must take into account the crowd-innovation aspect. Decentralisation allows for a great deal more creativity to 'eventually' bubble to the surface (in a perfect world ;))

oldmanjay 12y ago

I would love a list of the substantive differences between "the people" and the human beings currently running the things you believe should belong to "the people" I can think of one big one, in that the human beings currently running said services have at least some idea of the mechanics of performing the required duties.

hitchhiker999 12y ago
So you're trying to argue that because human beings are behind everything, it's basically the same? Are you suggesting an open-source backed community developing a project works the same way as Facebook does? While I've got you here, could you explain why you felt that was a salient point to make - I'm not being facetious, i would truly like to understand your deeper reasoning.

ap22213 12y ago

Decentralized infrastructure would be interesting. But, honestly, I can't even access the most important data (and information and knowledge) on centralized infrastructure.