4 ms·

Your counterargument sounds silly because it is silly. Email is a federal system. Even if it's more decentralized than having a single point of failure, it sti

by kaoD 12y ago

Your counterargument sounds silly because it is silly. Email is a federal system. Even if it's more decentralized than having a single point of failure, it still has authoritative nodes and just a few points of failure (maybe 4-5 instead of a single one, not much of a difference here). If your system has servers on which clients have to rely, it's not fully decentralized. A fully decentralized system is peer-to-peer only and does not rely on anyone else. You just join the network as a peer and that's all. There's no single point (or a few points) of failure because everyone is authoritative. If, for example, GMail is taken over your email is gone and any email sent to you thereafter is lost. Your mail address is owned and controlled by GMail, they just allow you access. Even switching from GMail to Yahoo is a burden! All your contacts have to update their address books and all non-updateable media (think printed, downloaded or out of your control, like some whitepapers I published which feature my email) is stuck with your old, unusable address forever. My Bitcoin address is working, regardless of who joins or leaves the Bitcoin network. Your GMail/GHash simile is misleading. GHash users can leave the pool and they'll still have their coins in their wallet, operating normally. If GHash is closed or DDoSed users could carry on normally, or even switch to another pool if they want to do so. GHash is external to Bitcoin (a service to gather peers for convenience), while GMail and other massive email servers are critical parts of the system. Even if you set up your own email server, other servers could refuse to relay email to you, or perhaps DNS servers might choose not to handle your domain... and you're gone. In a federal system, other authoritative nodes have to acknowledge you, which they might not. And even if they acknowledge your existence, your server is still a single point of failure for yourself! And you're still relying on other single-points-of-failure for delivery. Even if your server is fine, you might not be able to deliver messages to your friend in GMail if it's gone. We've already seen this happening. MtGox is gone, but Bitcoin (the system, not the community) didn't even notice.

paulasmuth 12y ago
All your points seem to focus on DNS. Nobody would argue that DNS is a decentralized system. And in fact neither is IP. As far as I understand nothing in SMTP makes it inherently more centralized than any piece of software that relies on IP (and for that matter, the web itself). Isn't the internet the poster child of a decentralized system? Does bitcoin/bitpost not rely on IP?
- kaoD 12y ago
  > All your points seem to focus on DNS. Not at all. How did you get that impression? DNS is just one of the many ways email is centralized (email relies in a centralized third party service to resolve domain names and find mail servers for them) but I just mention it near the end in a single sentence. Remove the sentence and my point still stands. Please read again and understand my comment! > And in fact neither is IP. Actually IP is neither centralized nor decentralized. Our current largest scale implementation (which we call the Internet) is centralized, but it's a side-effect, not a requirement. > As far as I understand nothing in SMTP makes it inherently more centralized than any piece of software that relies on IP Re-read my comment. Perhaps you don't know how Bitcoin works? In Bitcoin there are no servers... or rather, everyone is a server. The cool thing is I'm still receiving coins whether I am connected to the Bitcoin network or not. It just works, regardless of who is or isn't connected to the network! In email, I'm still tied to a provider (even if I'm my own provider) which is a single point of failure. I'll say it again: if your systems has clients relying on servers (which Bitcoin does not), it is not decentralized. Come on, this is actually what makes Bitcoin so revolutionary! > Does bitcoin/bitpost not rely on IP? It does (remember IP is not inherently centralized), but it does not rely on the Internet. Even if we're using IP (the protocol), Bitcoin is transport-agnostic. In fact it is a goal for the community to use other transports (such as radio or satellites) to avoid the problem of relying on the centralized Internet. Even then, IP (the protocol) will probably be used for addressing and such, but in a decentralized manner. It's not a requirement, but IP is a useful protocol and nobody wants to reinvent the wheel.
  - paulasmuth 12y ago
    Mh, I feel stupid now. In which ways other than relying on DNS and IP is "email" centralized?
    - kaoD 12y ago
      Sorry, I did some edits to the parent comment which may clarify. Don't feel stupid, Bitcoin's architecture is quite hard to grasp since it's such a beautiful piece of science and engineering. > In which ways other than relying on DNS and IP is "email" centralized? In email, there are servers which clients connect to and rely on. You can't be any more centralized than that! :P Re-read my comments and do a bit of research on how Bitcoin handles decentralization, it should make the picture clearer. If it isn't fully peer-to-peer, it isn't decentralized.
phlo 12y ago
For all intents and purposes, E-Mail (assuming you are in control of your own domain name) and Bitcoin are equally decentralized. E-Mail uses DNS information to find ip addresses matching recipients' host names. Bitcoin uses DNS seeds to bootstrap new peers. E-Mail can avoid using DNS, for example using /etc/hosts (a series of more-or-less hard coded hostname-ipaddr pairs). Bitcoin can avoid using DNS, through a series of hardcoded seed nodes' ip addresses. Unless the destination host's IP address is known, E-Mail will rely on DNS to discover it. Bitcoin will broadcast the message and hope for its inclusion in the block chain. DNS providers, E-Mail providers and other participating Bitcoin peers may at any time decide to ignore or block messages or not to forward them. Bitcoin miners may choose not to include messages in the block chain. Once the destination host is known, E-Mail can transport messages directly through SMTP. Bitcoin can broadcast to any nodes, including the desired recipient. As far as I can tell, SMTP is at least as decentralized as Bitcoin. And it avoids the problem of having to rely on unreliable peers and picky miners. I'm happy to learn though, so please feel free to point out any mistakes I made.
- kaoD 12y ago
  > For all intents and purposes, E-Mail (assuming you are in control of your own domain name) and Bitcoin are equally decentralized. I completely disagree. If your system isn't fully peer-to-peer, it's not decentralized. Period. The central servers might federate with each other, but it's still not decentralized since you're still relying on central third parties. Even if you set up your own server, the recipient's server is still a third party you have to rely on. > Bitcoin uses DNS seeds to bootstrap new peers. You focus too much on DNS (which I purposely skimmed over in your parent comment, just a single sentence) while I'm talking about the system itself. In the first place, Bitcoin relies on DNS much less than email: it's easier to replace DNS for Bitcoin (e.g. using list of known seeds, as you said) and it's something you do once (when connecting to the network for the first time), while email relies entirely on DNS for normal operation. - If you want to send email to a new unknown domain, you must fetch it's mail server from DNS if you don't know its IP already. And you still have to rely on the destination server proper operation! - If you want to send some BTC to a new Bitcoin address, you're good to go as long as you're already connected to the network. Let's level it: even if you avoid using DNSs both on email and Bitcoin, Bitcoin is still way more decentralized (since it's peer-to-peer) compared to email (which is peer-to-server-to-server-to-peer). If there's a server inbetween, it's not decentralized. Also: Bitcoin addresses are not tied to single providers, while email addresses are. > Bitcoin miners may choose not to include messages in the block chain. But because it is a decentralized protocol, someone else may choose to include it. That's the magic! If a single peer refuses to do something, there are still thousands of peers which might not refuse! In email, you rely on two authoritative servers, the sender and the recipient. If any of those two fail, communication is interrupted. Even you can include the transaction (with enough horsepower) or offer some compelling reason for others to include it, such as a huge fee. In email, if the server you rely on refuses to do something (think of a judicial order)... you can't do anything about it other than changing providers, updating your addresses, sharing your address with your recipient (which you might not be able to), etc. > Once the destination host is known, E-Mail can transport messages directly through SMTP. Bitcoin can broadcast to any nodes, including the desired recipient. Exactly! Quoting you: Bitcoin can broadcast to any nodes! Even if the recipient isn't even connected, the system keeps working! That's what makes Bitcoin more decentralized than email. I'll quote you again: Bitcoin can broadcast to any nodes! > And it avoids the problem of having to rely on unreliable peers and picky miners. So you'd rather rely on a few unreliable and picky servers which might be subject to coercion, instead of a lot of unreliable and picky peers which are easily repleaceable without damage or any burden to the system or its users? The key here is a few vs. a lot, and replaceability of nodes without burden for the users.

by kaoD 12y ago

paulasmuth 12y ago

All your points seem to focus on DNS. Nobody would argue that DNS is a decentralized system. And in fact neither is IP. As far as I understand nothing in SMTP makes it inherently more centralized than any piece of software that relies on IP (and for that matter, the web itself). Isn't the internet the poster child of a decentralized system? Does bitcoin/bitpost not rely on IP?

kaoD 12y ago
> All your points seem to focus on DNS. Not at all. How did you get that impression? DNS is just one of the many ways email is centralized (email relies in a centralized third party service to resolve domain names and find mail servers for them) but I just mention it near the end in a single sentence. Remove the sentence and my point still stands. Please read again and understand my comment! > And in fact neither is IP. Actually IP is neither centralized nor decentralized. Our current largest scale implementation (which we call the Internet) is centralized, but it's a side-effect, not a requirement. > As far as I understand nothing in SMTP makes it inherently more centralized than any piece of software that relies on IP Re-read my comment. Perhaps you don't know how Bitcoin works? In Bitcoin there are no servers... or rather, everyone is a server. The cool thing is I'm still receiving coins whether I am connected to the Bitcoin network or not. It just works, regardless of who is or isn't connected to the network! In email, I'm still tied to a provider (even if I'm my own provider) which is a single point of failure. I'll say it again: if your systems has clients relying on servers (which Bitcoin does not), it is not decentralized. Come on, this is actually what makes Bitcoin so revolutionary! > Does bitcoin/bitpost not rely on IP? It does (remember IP is not inherently centralized), but it does not rely on the Internet. Even if we're using IP (the protocol), Bitcoin is transport-agnostic. In fact it is a goal for the community to use other transports (such as radio or satellites) to avoid the problem of relying on the centralized Internet. Even then, IP (the protocol) will probably be used for addressing and such, but in a decentralized manner. It's not a requirement, but IP is a useful protocol and nobody wants to reinvent the wheel.
- paulasmuth 12y ago
  Mh, I feel stupid now. In which ways other than relying on DNS and IP is "email" centralized?
  - kaoD 12y ago
    Sorry, I did some edits to the parent comment which may clarify. Don't feel stupid, Bitcoin's architecture is quite hard to grasp since it's such a beautiful piece of science and engineering. > In which ways other than relying on DNS and IP is "email" centralized? In email, there are servers which clients connect to and rely on. You can't be any more centralized than that! :P Re-read my comments and do a bit of research on how Bitcoin handles decentralization, it should make the picture clearer. If it isn't fully peer-to-peer, it isn't decentralized.

phlo 12y ago

For all intents and purposes, E-Mail (assuming you are in control of your own domain name) and Bitcoin are equally decentralized. E-Mail uses DNS information to find ip addresses matching recipients' host names. Bitcoin uses DNS seeds to bootstrap new peers. E-Mail can avoid using DNS, for example using /etc/hosts (a series of more-or-less hard coded hostname-ipaddr pairs). Bitcoin can avoid using DNS, through a series of hardcoded seed nodes' ip addresses. Unless the destination host's IP address is known, E-Mail will rely on DNS to discover it. Bitcoin will broadcast the message and hope for its inclusion in the block chain. DNS providers, E-Mail providers and other participating Bitcoin peers may at any time decide to ignore or block messages or not to forward them. Bitcoin miners may choose not to include messages in the block chain. Once the destination host is known, E-Mail can transport messages directly through SMTP. Bitcoin can broadcast to any nodes, including the desired recipient. As far as I can tell, SMTP is at least as decentralized as Bitcoin. And it avoids the problem of having to rely on unreliable peers and picky miners. I'm happy to learn though, so please feel free to point out any mistakes I made.

kaoD 12y ago
> For all intents and purposes, E-Mail (assuming you are in control of your own domain name) and Bitcoin are equally decentralized. I completely disagree. If your system isn't fully peer-to-peer, it's not decentralized. Period. The central servers might federate with each other, but it's still not decentralized since you're still relying on central third parties. Even if you set up your own server, the recipient's server is still a third party you have to rely on. > Bitcoin uses DNS seeds to bootstrap new peers. You focus too much on DNS (which I purposely skimmed over in your parent comment, just a single sentence) while I'm talking about the system itself. In the first place, Bitcoin relies on DNS much less than email: it's easier to replace DNS for Bitcoin (e.g. using list of known seeds, as you said) and it's something you do once (when connecting to the network for the first time), while email relies entirely on DNS for normal operation. - If you want to send email to a new unknown domain, you must fetch it's mail server from DNS if you don't know its IP already. And you still have to rely on the destination server proper operation! - If you want to send some BTC to a new Bitcoin address, you're good to go as long as you're already connected to the network. Let's level it: even if you avoid using DNSs both on email and Bitcoin, Bitcoin is still way more decentralized (since it's peer-to-peer) compared to email (which is peer-to-server-to-server-to-peer). If there's a server inbetween, it's not decentralized. Also: Bitcoin addresses are not tied to single providers, while email addresses are. > Bitcoin miners may choose not to include messages in the block chain. But because it is a decentralized protocol, someone else may choose to include it. That's the magic! If a single peer refuses to do something, there are still thousands of peers which might not refuse! In email, you rely on two authoritative servers, the sender and the recipient. If any of those two fail, communication is interrupted. Even you can include the transaction (with enough horsepower) or offer some compelling reason for others to include it, such as a huge fee. In email, if the server you rely on refuses to do something (think of a judicial order)... you can't do anything about it other than changing providers, updating your addresses, sharing your address with your recipient (which you might not be able to), etc. > Once the destination host is known, E-Mail can transport messages directly through SMTP. Bitcoin can broadcast to any nodes, including the desired recipient. Exactly! Quoting you: Bitcoin can broadcast to any nodes! Even if the recipient isn't even connected, the system keeps working! That's what makes Bitcoin more decentralized than email. I'll quote you again: Bitcoin can broadcast to any nodes! > And it avoids the problem of having to rely on unreliable peers and picky miners. So you'd rather rely on a few unreliable and picky servers which might be subject to coercion, instead of a lot of unreliable and picky peers which are easily repleaceable without damage or any burden to the system or its users? The key here is a few vs. a lot, and replaceability of nodes without burden for the users.