5 ms·

Having a decentralized forum/chat/data system would be really awesome, even if that might be against google's interests. I really want the future to have more p

by jokoon 11y ago

Having a decentralized forum/chat/data system would be really awesome, even if that might be against google's interests. I really want the future to have more p2p systems. There was edonkey, then bittorent, then the cloud, then git, then bittorrent sync... I don't understand why systems like freenet and bitmessage have not taken off. The internet was built for p2p, but it's still mostly used as a broadcast system where everything is centralized. Why isn't google trying to fund those projects ? Because they re so much invested in the web of HTML content they can't look eitherway.

explorigin 11y ago
Retroshare is underrated. It has already solved many of these issues.
joeyspn 11y ago
> I don't understand why systems like freenet and bitmessage have not taken off. I think the problem has been always the poor UX, but eventually something well thought out like popcorn-time could appear and cause a greater adoption.
benkant 11y ago
I had a rant about this on Twitter yesterday[0]. Google makes money precisely because the web is centralised. If we moved to P2P systems they could still provide an index, but I'd wager far less data would ultimately pass through them. Not to mention that if people were more in control of their data rather than LinkedIn, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, I bet they'd be less inclined to having it indexed publically simply because they have a choice. There's all sorts of network effects and shitty incentives at play, and it's a shame. My twitter rant (not the whole thing even) > though they have their place, centralised systems reinforce the role of the middle man, which is prime for rent-seeking and lopsided value > in reality networks exist on a continuum between centralised/decentralised. The web makes it difficult to choose the correct degree per case > both centralised and decentralised systems have trust issues, but they are different in kind not magnitude > the incentives are wrong for innovation. Google requires centralised, so HTTP is fine. Ubiquity, so HTML is fine > web developers have spent years becoming skilled in their corner and are incentivised to defend and perpetuate the platform > if you think discoverability, zero-install and sandboxes are only possible on the web, I invite you to consult the literature > we could have decentralised, secure, simple, efficient primitives, but network effects and incentives steer us away > tech solutions are moot unless they incentivise behaviour that leads to better returns for everyone. layers on HTML/HTTP will never do that [0] https://twitter.com/benkant https://twitter.com/benkant
- kbenson 11y ago
  In what way do you think the web is centralized?
  - jokoon 11y ago
    The nature of http and websites makes the web centralized: there's always a server, users don't really serve data, it's always stored somewhere. It's true that it's decentralized, that's it's easy to create websites, but in nature, if you shut down dns servers, you shut down 99% of the internet, which inclues HTML website. And I think that a decentralized web might be more easy to index (proof of work system, etc).
    - kbenson 11y ago
      That's not centralized, it's just less decentralized. Centralized and decentralized or on opposite ends of the spectrum. It's possible to be less decentralized and still be very far from centralized. There are many, many different entities providing all sorts of services, so I'm not sure how that portion can be seen as centralized at all. DNS, as you not, is probably the most centralized single point that everything relies on, but they simply have authority because we give them authority. If DNS server adminitrators decided to use different root servers, there's not a lot they can do about that. But I'll concede that authoritative DNS is fairly centralized, given it requires checking with a single authority, but even then, man entities(TLDs) have a say in what that authority says (but not the ultimate say).
      - jokoon 11y ago
        Well you're right, in nature and architecture the internet in decentralized, but the use most users make of it, is centralized. If you look at what internet.org attempted to do, that's actually how the internet is used most of the time. For consumers and most small businesses, internet is centralized. Technically, most of the internet is just http requests, meaning that there will always be this duality of servers and clients. Without web servers and their admins, there is nothing, and that's a form of control in my opinion: you can easily shut down a website.

by jokoon 11y ago

explorigin 11y ago

Retroshare is underrated. It has already solved many of these issues.

joeyspn 11y ago

> I don't understand why systems like freenet and bitmessage have not taken off. I think the problem has been always the poor UX, but eventually something well thought out like popcorn-time could appear and cause a greater adoption.

benkant 11y ago

I had a rant about this on Twitter yesterday[0]. Google makes money precisely because the web is centralised. If we moved to P2P systems they could still provide an index, but I'd wager far less data would ultimately pass through them. Not to mention that if people were more in control of their data rather than LinkedIn, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, I bet they'd be less inclined to having it indexed publically simply because they have a choice. There's all sorts of network effects and shitty incentives at play, and it's a shame. My twitter rant (not the whole thing even) > though they have their place, centralised systems reinforce the role of the middle man, which is prime for rent-seeking and lopsided value > in reality networks exist on a continuum between centralised/decentralised. The web makes it difficult to choose the correct degree per case > both centralised and decentralised systems have trust issues, but they are different in kind not magnitude > the incentives are wrong for innovation. Google requires centralised, so HTTP is fine. Ubiquity, so HTML is fine > web developers have spent years becoming skilled in their corner and are incentivised to defend and perpetuate the platform > if you think discoverability, zero-install and sandboxes are only possible on the web, I invite you to consult the literature > we could have decentralised, secure, simple, efficient primitives, but network effects and incentives steer us away > tech solutions are moot unless they incentivise behaviour that leads to better returns for everyone. layers on HTML/HTTP will never do that [0] https://twitter.com/benkant https://twitter.com/benkant

kbenson 11y ago
In what way do you think the web is centralized?
- jokoon 11y ago
  The nature of http and websites makes the web centralized: there's always a server, users don't really serve data, it's always stored somewhere. It's true that it's decentralized, that's it's easy to create websites, but in nature, if you shut down dns servers, you shut down 99% of the internet, which inclues HTML website. And I think that a decentralized web might be more easy to index (proof of work system, etc).
  - kbenson 11y ago
    That's not centralized, it's just less decentralized. Centralized and decentralized or on opposite ends of the spectrum. It's possible to be less decentralized and still be very far from centralized. There are many, many different entities providing all sorts of services, so I'm not sure how that portion can be seen as centralized at all. DNS, as you not, is probably the most centralized single point that everything relies on, but they simply have authority because we give them authority. If DNS server adminitrators decided to use different root servers, there's not a lot they can do about that. But I'll concede that authoritative DNS is fairly centralized, given it requires checking with a single authority, but even then, man entities(TLDs) have a say in what that authority says (but not the ultimate say).
    - jokoon 11y ago
      Well you're right, in nature and architecture the internet in decentralized, but the use most users make of it, is centralized. If you look at what internet.org attempted to do, that's actually how the internet is used most of the time. For consumers and most small businesses, internet is centralized. Technically, most of the internet is just http requests, meaning that there will always be this duality of servers and clients. Without web servers and their admins, there is nothing, and that's a form of control in my opinion: you can easily shut down a website.