The people still fighting this war of decentralization remind me of the Japanese soldiers who didn't realize WW2 was over. You lost. No one cares about decentralization. Google won. Amazon won. Facebook won. The great majority of people invest in BTC and ETH because they think it'll make them wealthy, not because of some noble desire to fight "the man." Besides, BTC isn't really decentralized anyway, the million-dollar-VC-backed miners basically control that ecosystem.
> decentralization isn’t really a boon
Narrowly true. On its own, decentralization isn’t good or bad. In an ecosystem like ours, where most tools and services assume centralized architecture, it’s probably net bad.
But here’s a hypothesis for you:
In an ecosystem where decentralization was the default, decentralization would be a boon.
There’s a chicken and egg problem there, but I just wanted you to understand why I think decentralization is worth thinking about, even though I can see, as you do, that it is objectively the wrong way to solve almost any isolated problem.
I am building decentralized software, where there is no database, no global namespace, no source of truth, etc. My assumption is I’ll have to redesign everything, from basic authentication to employee workflows to accounting strategies in order for it to pay off. The reason I’m trying is I suspect it has very recently become technically feasible to take on a scope like that for a well-enough defined business logic. I.e. a “vertical slice” where all aspects of the business are radically decentralized. The downside being you can’t use any off the shelf software or development tools whatsoever.
I am reminded of that one IBM executive (I think) saying back in the day that no one would ever be interested in having their own computers at home.
In a similar vein, keep in mind that TCP/IP was invented in the 60s but did not start getting widely used until the 70s.
Sure, as long as you don't actually want to email someone else. AWS, DigitalOcean, Linode, anywhere you might want to host your email server, they're likely already blocked by all the spam filters so you're never going to get through.
>You can't host your own Facebook page.
You can't host your own Gmail either, but you can host something awfully similar to Facebook while not being exactly Facebook.
If you host something "awfully similar to Facebook" you can't communicate with Facebook users. If you host your own emails, you can still communicate with Gmail users. Surely you weren't intending that retort as a serious argument?
Gmail is just the webinterface to Googles mail, I can host the latter, while using the former with a proper client.
Fuck no and I hope the real hackers (not the business people pretending to be hackers) fight this forever until they win. Decentralization is not dead, is the backbone of the principles of the internet, and I find your casual dismissal to be extremely miopic on the subject, and the subservient acquiescence of it disappointing.
Fuck google, amazon and facebook. They aren't the internet, and they aren't going to last forever.
Now, to back it up a bit, I do have some criticisms of what I call extreme decentralization. A relevant past comment of mine: "As a sysadmin, any time I read some variation of; "At some point even data centers may become a thing of the past.", I know they don't know what they are talking about. As a matter of fact it has provided much joy through laughter (followed by required sysadmin scotch) at the show "Silicon Valley" for obviously parodying the issue. Datacenters aren't going anywhere, and this strange fascination in hipster-hackers with instant uber-decentralization-pushes concerns me because it ignores some of the more real (and fixable) issues at hand like dns centralization in favor of magical "p2p(+blockchain) will save us all" thinking not backed by much real world practical implementation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a darknet, meshnet supporter. I love decentralization. That said, I support the establishment of the infrastructure required to support it independent of end-user devices, and I think for security and other purposes it's at least possible they should remain separate, and devs shouldn't assume so much right to cpu-cycles.
So in essence the topology I think that is preferable would be properly called decentralized-distributed.
Of course thats part of the reason I support things that go against that common grain, such as ipv6nat."
The key point being that I think the proper terminology of the current internet is decentralized-distributed. Those who ignore the distrubuted part of decentralization are going to have a tough time, but in the same vein those who ignore decentraliztion in favor of distribution are also going to have a hard time.
yes, they won the current round of games. 50 years is a long-ass time dog. nobody can see that far into the future. i'm actually more motivated to continue on my present course because of this type of attitude. see, if the things you do and say piss people off, you are touching on something... important or sensitive. i'm triggering some shit, and i'm going to keep it up. please, tell me i'm wrong and foolish. tell me i already lost. that's the battle i'm looking for. i got nothing but time.
i'm not exactly anti-corporate either. i'm anti-"the current crop of megacorps" mostly because i see them as my competition. impossibly tough competition. i love hard problems tho. i'm a scientist at heart. i want the money, but only if i can get it by being obnoxiously clever.
...or something idk just not boring and broken no point in living if you aren't fighting
yeah that's what i said.
SSBT, for example, has no consensus, so everything is subjective (which makes it almost impossible to do anything useful with).
i disagree, there are a huge number of (fun) applications that don't need global (or strong) consensus.
You lost. No one cares about decentralization. Google won. Amazon won. Facebook won.
the war isn't over yet fam. i'm just trying to reclaim my homeland. don't forget that the reconquista took 700 years. if i can make something fun for myself that removes my dependency on centralized computer systems, i'll be happy. its a big universe, i don't have to kill the beast to build a nice rural community in the countryside. i just have to break its grip on myself and mine.
you should like, read the post tho. i'm actually arguing against blockchains and dhts because they don't scale well and require expensive internet infrastructure to operate.
Hyperbole aside (lol Reconquista), if you prefer to live on an island, decentralization is 100% fine. But be warned: my grandparents lived a very hard life farming and toiling the fields. It's not as glamorous as it sounds. Hobbes' bon sauvage is illusory.
we will probably fail, but its whatever at least we'll have learned something and had some fun along the way
I agree no service is going to get adoption if its main feature is decentralization, but that doesn't need to be its value proposition. "Post your cat photos here and get paid in cat-tokens that are worth real money" would be the incentive.
IMO it would be a much better project if it was IPFS-compatible so that it could benefit from all the existing work that is being done on IPFS.
For tax-free, trustless estate transfers?
Everyone (Main Street) just thinks it's a crypto currency right now.
What about TRUSTLESS gambling?
Maybe there'd be a market for that?
Now, the high volatility of crypto is an impediment to this model, but after the blood bath (possibly starting today), values will hopefully stabilize a bit and make the values a little more stable and predictable.
The Etherium Network imposes no such burdens.
So your libertarian utopia of cryptocurrencies being uncontrolled has now become an instrument of former off-shorers to hide their dollars/euros/yen/kittens.
<strong>Warning:</strong><p>You triggered the wiki's surge protection by doing too many requests in a short time.</p><p>Please make a short break reading the stuff you already got.</p><p>When you restart doing requests AFTER that, slow down or you might get locked out for a longer time!</p>
Google cache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qGQvzK...
Certainly I am missing something obvious?
- "Layer 2" networks: Most transaction volume happens off-chain. POW blockchain remains as a settlement layer. Quite a few proposed protocols. Lightning network  is the most well known. First mainnet lightning transactions were sent in December 
- Sharding: Split the blockchain into lots of different blockchains with a subset of miners validating transactions on each sub-chain. Miners are randomly assigned a new sub-chain on a regular basis to stop collusion. Each sub-chain has it's own address space. Sub-chains can communicate using asynchronus message passing. Ethereum has a draft specification  and is starting to implement some test clients .
Let's take mesh networks for example (as mentioned in the article). Substratum pays users in coins to share their network, which creates an incentive to grow the network (as long as the coins are worth something). If the coins are worthless, the model doesn't work.
It would take a lot of money to create the incentives without the coins.
I feel like people keep getting really far away from what a blockchain really is (a fancy linked list that can ensure integrity from start to end) and are confusing it for how Bitcoin uses it.
Blockchains(PoW/PoS/etc) are not the solution for decentralized applications because blockchains are a global state and most decentralized application don't _need_ a global state. (Specially non-fintech ones that don't have a double-spend problem like social/websites/photos/etc)
It briefly mentions Secure Scuttlebutt, a gossip protocol that works over meshnets without global internet access as an example of a decentralized technology without a global state.