46 ms·

Isn't this article just surface level technohype? 1. Mesh Networks: FireChat isn't a mesh network. There is a long thread on /r/Futurology about it, with lots

by blorgle 12y ago

Isn't this article just surface level technohype? 1. Mesh Networks: FireChat isn't a mesh network. There is a long thread on /r/Futurology about it, with lots of good posts describing what it is and the problems with implementing real mesh networks (https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2hvtoh/over_100000_people_in_hong_kong_downloaded/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2hvtoh/over_100...). The article espouses all the benefits of mesh networks and glosses over the gritty facts of implementation that can't necessarily be solved by simply throwing more software at the problem. 2. The BlockChain: Yes, this is a massively distributed system. But the fact is it relies on the existence of a fast, reliable internet that so happens to be immensely centralised. A rant I often like to have which makes me unpopular amongst the proponents of so called p2p systems is that the bootstrap of all of these so called decentralised systems is completely centralised. Bittorrent has trackers, Bitcoin uses DNS seeds to find peers, Tor uses directory servers and most others simply hardcode some URL list of peers into their source. If you can attack the bootstrap you can split these so called decentralised networks quite easily. Sybil attack is a common vector here. The article also glosses over the fact that all the things which have driven bitcoin adoption and popularity (Blockchain.io, Mt Gox, BitStamp, BitPay, etc) are all centralised services which require the user to essentially give up any of the supposed benefits of decentralisation. Even in the case of mining, how many run their own bitcoind? 99% of miners run in a pool, another form of centralisation. 3. Autonomous agents: I can't even...

snowwrestler 12y ago
Yes and this assertion is laughably wrong: > But history has proven that the centralized model is flawed and inefficient. History shows the exact opposite. For example, at one point every business above a certain size had its own electric generator, and developed their own electricity on-site. In other words, decentralized power. That was replaced by contracts with central generation providers because that centralized model was so much more efficient. You can see the same thing happening today with computing power (AWS, Azure, Google), music (Spotify, Pandors), movies (Netlfix), and books (Kindle).
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  The real answer is that size is a trade off. If you make entities too big you get all the problems of a monopoly, single point of failure, monoculture, etc. If you make entities too small you start having problems coordinating and knowing who to trust. What you want is something in the middle. Email is a good example.
- jefurii 12y ago
  >Yes and this assertion is laughably wrong: >History shows the exact opposite. For example, at one point every business above a certain size had its own electric generator, and developed their own electricity on-site. In other words, decentralized power. That was replaced by contracts with central generation providers because that centralized model was so much more efficient. Your comment assumes that efficiency is the most important thing. Addressing power imbalances and improving local resiliency are also important. In the 1960s and 70s for many people computers meant centralized power and oppression. Computers were huge and expensive and therefore centralized, and only big government and big business (i.e. The Man) could afford them. A lot of the appeal of desktop computers in the 1980s was that they were personal: you could run the computing tasks that you wanted, on a machine that you controlled.
  - dreamfactory2 12y ago
    Though rather than home users, it was business that drove the adoption and commercialisation of the pc. That was through networks of desktop machines running software like lotus which could be configured by users, replacing mainframes that required costly administrators and programmers. It was largely about cost efficiency and agility, particularly as the financial sector was undergoing big changes at that time.
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    Maybe for people who already liked and used computers, which was a tiny minority. For most Americans, a desktop PC was their very first direct experience with computing at all. Today what do most people use their computers for? Accessing the services of big service providers like Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, etc.
lebek 12y ago
Systems can be partly centralized and still benefit from being mostly decentralized. The examples you gave are good examples of this.
- blorgle 12y ago
  I understand what you are saying, and as you said that is what we see today. The point I'm trying to make is that the utility of the system is driven by the centralised components. Without those centralised components, the so called decentralised systems have no utility to most users. What good is BitTorrent without TPB? How can you measure and transact in BTCUSD without going to BitStamp? I'm not suggesting we couldn't get by on decentralised systems, but rather that such concepts are largely the domain of the geeky. Centralisation is what provides the convenience and trust that drives utility and adoption.
  - ObviousScience 12y ago
    There is a massive number of trackers besides TPB, including ones related to open source projects or other software distribution. For that matter, even Twitter adapted torrent technology to distribute binaries to servers at a datacenter.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Like ObviousScience said, there are hundreds of torrent aggregators (both public and private), and that's not to mention thousands of sites (e.g. forums) where torrent files and magnet links are distributed between users. How can you measure and transact in BTCUSD without going to BitStamp? By going to BTC-e, OKCoin, Bitfinex, Coinbase, localbitcoins, or Craigslist? I'm not suggesting we couldn't get by on decentralised systems, but rather that such concepts are largely the domain of the geeky. Geeks didn't pass anti-trust law.

by blorgle 12y ago

snowwrestler 12y ago

Yes and this assertion is laughably wrong: > But history has proven that the centralized model is flawed and inefficient. History shows the exact opposite. For example, at one point every business above a certain size had its own electric generator, and developed their own electricity on-site. In other words, decentralized power. That was replaced by contracts with central generation providers because that centralized model was so much more efficient. You can see the same thing happening today with computing power (AWS, Azure, Google), music (Spotify, Pandors), movies (Netlfix), and books (Kindle).

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
The real answer is that size is a trade off. If you make entities too big you get all the problems of a monopoly, single point of failure, monoculture, etc. If you make entities too small you start having problems coordinating and knowing who to trust. What you want is something in the middle. Email is a good example.
jefurii 12y ago
>Yes and this assertion is laughably wrong: >History shows the exact opposite. For example, at one point every business above a certain size had its own electric generator, and developed their own electricity on-site. In other words, decentralized power. That was replaced by contracts with central generation providers because that centralized model was so much more efficient. Your comment assumes that efficiency is the most important thing. Addressing power imbalances and improving local resiliency are also important. In the 1960s and 70s for many people computers meant centralized power and oppression. Computers were huge and expensive and therefore centralized, and only big government and big business (i.e. The Man) could afford them. A lot of the appeal of desktop computers in the 1980s was that they were personal: you could run the computing tasks that you wanted, on a machine that you controlled.
- dreamfactory2 12y ago
  Though rather than home users, it was business that drove the adoption and commercialisation of the pc. That was through networks of desktop machines running software like lotus which could be configured by users, replacing mainframes that required costly administrators and programmers. It was largely about cost efficiency and agility, particularly as the financial sector was undergoing big changes at that time.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  Maybe for people who already liked and used computers, which was a tiny minority. For most Americans, a desktop PC was their very first direct experience with computing at all. Today what do most people use their computers for? Accessing the services of big service providers like Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, etc.

lebek 12y ago

Systems can be partly centralized and still benefit from being mostly decentralized. The examples you gave are good examples of this.

blorgle 12y ago
I understand what you are saying, and as you said that is what we see today. The point I'm trying to make is that the utility of the system is driven by the centralised components. Without those centralised components, the so called decentralised systems have no utility to most users. What good is BitTorrent without TPB? How can you measure and transact in BTCUSD without going to BitStamp? I'm not suggesting we couldn't get by on decentralised systems, but rather that such concepts are largely the domain of the geeky. Centralisation is what provides the convenience and trust that drives utility and adoption.
- ObviousScience 12y ago
  There is a massive number of trackers besides TPB, including ones related to open source projects or other software distribution. For that matter, even Twitter adapted torrent technology to distribute binaries to servers at a datacenter.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Like ObviousScience said, there are hundreds of torrent aggregators (both public and private), and that's not to mention thousands of sites (e.g. forums) where torrent files and magnet links are distributed between users. How can you measure and transact in BTCUSD without going to BitStamp? By going to BTC-e, OKCoin, Bitfinex, Coinbase, localbitcoins, or Craigslist? I'm not suggesting we couldn't get by on decentralised systems, but rather that such concepts are largely the domain of the geeky. Geeks didn't pass anti-trust law.