2 ms·

"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. Decentra

by 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 ;))

by read 12y ago

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 ;))