TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The importance of decentralisation

300 点作者 telmich超过 5 年前

17 条评论

jasode超过 5 年前
It&#x27;s sort of an ongoing hobby of mine to study the forces of decentralization vs centralization.<p>This article about decentralization does what many other evangelism articles do: <i>talk about the ideals and benefits</i>.<p>However, I believed what&#x27;s rarely discussed but more important is the <i>economic forces</i> that prevent decentralization from fulfilling the idealists&#x27; vision. Yes, decentralization will be in effect for niche groups but I don&#x27;t see it becoming mainstream.<p>To purposely be provocative to spur discussion, I will make a bold claim: <i>Decentralization is an unstable equilibrium. It&#x27;s the centralization that becomes the stable status quo.</i><p>If tpcip protocol and http protocol are <i>already decentralized</i>, why do we have centralized services that have &quot;too much power&quot; such as Facebook&#x2F;Google&#x2F;Youtube? It&#x27;s because different actors can <i>spend more money</i> on their particular http node than other http nodes. Those <i>unequal economic forces</i> is what makes decentralization tend towards centralization. There is no technical protocol specification that can prevent that.<p>E.g. if Git protocol is decentralized, why is there so much concentration on Github? It&#x27;s because John doesn&#x27;t want to install a git server on his laptop and punch a DMZ hole through his home router and leave his laptop up &amp; running 24 hours a day to serve up his git repo. He&#x27;d rather spend the weekend playing with his children. And Jane doesn&#x27;t want to spend $30 on a Raspberry Pi and install Gitlab on it to serve up her git repo. Multiply John and Jane&#x27;s by a million other devs with their own various reasons for not serving up their git repos in a decentralized manner and the emergent phenomenon you get is something like Github.<p>See the trend? Centralization is a <i>natural outcome</i> of millions of people not wanting to (1) spend money and (2) not wanting to spend extra time -- to fulfill ideals of decentralization.<p>I wish we would discuss the above factors much more often and there were more articles about it.
评论 #21536547 未加载
评论 #21536611 未加载
评论 #21535890 未加载
评论 #21535973 未加载
评论 #21535903 未加载
评论 #21535789 未加载
评论 #21536028 未加载
评论 #21535987 未加载
评论 #21535924 未加载
评论 #21540234 未加载
评论 #21536395 未加载
评论 #21537101 未加载
评论 #21536264 未加载
评论 #21537432 未加载
评论 #21535961 未加载
评论 #21538280 未加载
评论 #21537710 未加载
评论 #21561626 未加载
评论 #21536206 未加载
评论 #21535822 未加载
评论 #21539322 未加载
评论 #21540778 未加载
评论 #21537585 未加载
评论 #21538686 未加载
评论 #21537772 未加载
评论 #21536107 未加载
评论 #21536192 未加载
评论 #21541985 未加载
评论 #21536364 未加载
mapgrep超过 5 年前
The article calls ipv6 an “easy way” to decentralize but I don’t see it.<p>If you click the link on how to get your own ipv6 space you get two options: Ask your ISP for an address or set up a tunnel to someone else who will give you one.<p>These are the same options we have today for ipv4. I went on my crappy large ISP’s website. They are not handing out static ipv6.<p>Why would they? The problem has always been more about corporate power than tech.
评论 #21543924 未加载
oakejp12超过 5 年前
I may be somewhat confused, but how would a different IP address&#x2F;system prevent centralized services? It seems to me that the same market problems, the strong vendor lock-ins explained in the post, will still persist in IPv6. There&#x27;s no mention of how&#x2F;why IPv6 solves those problems, just that they do...
评论 #21535548 未加载
评论 #21535570 未加载
nicey超过 5 年前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;awesome-selfhosted&#x2F;awesome-selfhosted&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;awesome-selfhosted&#x2F;awesome-selfhosted&#x2F;</a>
评论 #21535750 未加载
评论 #21535614 未加载
评论 #21535197 未加载
评论 #21603519 未加载
clarkmoody超过 5 年前
Local-first software development[1][2] could also be a force for decentralization, since you don&#x27;t need a coordination server to hold the authoritative version of a document. The relevant protocol for discussion is the CRDT (conflict-free, replicated data type).<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.inkandswitch.com&#x2F;local-first.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.inkandswitch.com&#x2F;local-first.html</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=19804478" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=19804478</a> (6 months ago)
foobar_超过 5 年前
Some random thoughts on centralization vs decentralization. In theory, IPv6 allows every human, pet, alien and robot to have an address. Each address can host let&#x27;s say the following services<p>1. info - dns<p>2. data transfer - ftp&#x2F;http&#x2F;p2p&#x2F;...<p>3. communication - email&#x2F;voip&#x2F;...<p>4. entertainment - game server&#x2F;media server&#x2F;...<p>Right now the biggest problems with decentralisation are<p>1. ownership of hardware<p>2. assigning of address and interfacing with the network.<p>3. configuration and setup of services<p>4. scalability of the service<p>5. using decentralized stuff for illegal activities<p>I think 2 and 3 is the biggest win improving decentralized services and getting rid of facebook and the like. Why are two and 3 still hard? This will also make decentralized services appealing to normal folks. The biggest challenge to making decentralized services mainstream is 5.<p>Hardware is manufactured by a few monopolies and they impose some restrictions and tracking abilities. The assigning of an address is done by the telecom and they have some rules, regulations and tracking abilities. Each country right now is setting up new rules and regulations for the data that comes into it. As configuring and the setting up of stuff is hard we once again have a few major services. The illegal activity makes decentralized services seem like the wild west and centralized services seem like stable societies. The spirit of legality is to ensure fairness but when that doesn&#x27;t happen people turn to decentralized mediums to express themselves.
djsumdog超过 5 年前
I wrote an article about just the e-commerce aspect of this a few weeks back:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;battlepenguin.com&#x2F;tech&#x2F;the-death-of-the-mom-and-pop-e-store&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;battlepenguin.com&#x2F;tech&#x2F;the-death-of-the-mom-and-pop-...</a><p>There are fewer and fewer websites with things for sale. Everyone puts their stuff on an Amazon, eBay, Newegg, Etsy or Reverb store. The big carriers are the store-of-stores.<p>Some people setup a Shopify or other site as well, but it&#x27;s usually secondary, or it&#x27;s to sell merch for another thing like webcomic or blog.
neilobremski超过 5 年前
As someone who works in the domain name industry, I&#x27;d like to note that there is ever increasing pressure to police domain name use. When you buy and use a generic TLD such as &quot;com&quot; or &quot;ninja&quot;, you are buying a US product and it is subject to sanction laws and other things you may not realize. CC TLDs (two characters long like &quot;ch&quot;) are products of that country and have their own laws UNLESS the registry company is located in the US - in which case it is also subject to sanctions.<p>I point this out because unless you get everyone using your IPv6 address directly, your name is certainly NOT decentralized.
评论 #21541871 未加载
评论 #21542243 未加载
Merrill超过 5 年前
Is there an effective way to suppress denial of service attacks in a decentralized network?<p>Given that there are DNS root servers, isn&#x27;t the internet actually centralized?
评论 #21537361 未加载
miguelmota超过 5 年前
So long as ISPs are centralized, it doesn’t matter if everyone has their own IPv6 address because ISPs are gatekeepers that can censor requests.
marknadal超过 5 年前
The Internet Archive (parent of the Wayback Machine, Top 300 website in the world) is doing a lot to help re-decentralize the web.<p>Check out this post for more info:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=17685682" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=17685682</a>
hirundo超过 5 年前
This underlines the positive side of Tall Poppy Syndrome. Envy has a number of serious down sides, including making the sufferer miserable for, usually, very little return. But when people stop using an Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc., <i>because</i> they are successful, it creates a counter-force to centralization. Like hate, when well directed, envy can be good. Like hate, it can easily get out of control and cause great damage, up to and including genocides.
评论 #21536021 未加载
amilein7minutes超过 5 年前
Sorry for the naive question but can anyone explain why hosting an IPv6-only server can help with decentralization? As a provider of some service, say you have a website where you publish some work, is there any advantage of setting it up as an IPv6 server?
评论 #21539721 未加载
hkjhreiou超过 5 年前
So what&#x27;s the latest deal with IPv6?<p>IPv4 was supposed to run out and the Internet come crashing down 5 years ago, yet here we are, and everything seems just fine, while a billion smartphones were added.
评论 #21536087 未加载
评论 #21537509 未加载
explodingcamera超过 5 年前
Missed a really cool vanity url opportunity :)
peterwwillis超过 5 年前
The internet will not stop being decentralized just because there are some consumer product monopolies.<p>When Amazon starts running its own dark fiber, and you can only use that fiber to buy shoes that are only sold on Amazon, then <i>part</i> of the internet will be close to being centralized. But that would still just be a small part of it, and it still won&#x27;t happen entirely.<p>There&#x27;s a very long tail between Amazon and the user. How does Amazon connect to the user? Sure, it starts in their datacenter. But then immediately they need to connect to multiple points of presence, which means multiple bundles of fiber going in different directions. And so you&#x27;d say, sure, Amazon has lots of DCs, so they could just run dark fiber between all of them. But they&#x27;re not _everywhere_, so they need to eventually peer to a more global network.<p>Eventually you get to the ISP. There&#x27;s two kinds of ISPs: wired and wireless. While they&#x27;re increasingly the same company, there is a wealth of technology, expense, competition, and physical infrastructure wrapped up in each. Copper and fiber runs to every home, customer support, billing, management, contracts with public and private entities. There&#x27;s multiple companies in these industries that are bigger than Amazon.<p>Say Amazon becomes its own ISP. They can either run fiber to every home (lol) or become their own nationwide wireless ILEC (lol) or they can become an MVNO and rent access to an ISP&#x27;s gear (possible) or they can just pay internet backbones to peer with them and get access to all ISPs&#x27; customers. The first two would basically be like making a brand new Comcast; uh, good luck with that. The third is what Comcast already does: they rent ILEC&#x27;s networks to provide their own mobile service, capturing more customers. The last is how the internet operates today: the ISP deals with the complexity of getting everyone in the country online, and Amazon just pays to connect to POPs.<p>In a non-net-neutrality world, any ISP can add a line-item to your bill for you to get access to Amazon. In that case, Amazon becoming an ISP avoids that, capturing more profit in the process. But why in &quot;Bob&quot;&#x27;s name go through all that work, when you can just charge people individually to access your website? Aka, Amazon Prime. So in order to completely control your access to shoes, they can either build an ISP, or just..... use existing ISPs. Currently, most ISPs aren&#x27;t adding line-items to access Amazon, so the latter works fine.<p>In another bizzaro possibility, Amazon could merge with every ISP in America, creating a hyperconglomerate, so only Americans could access Amazon, and every ISP bill is charged for Prime, and every non-American ISP has to pay to route traffic to Amazon. I think that would just crush Amazon&#x27;s sales, but it&#x27;s possible. But <i>still</i> the internet would be decentralized, at least globally.<p>And one final option that actually already exists in developing nations: Amazon and a handful of other monopolies subsidize ISPs to create a &quot;bare-bones&quot; internet plan, where you literally can only surf to Facebook, Amazon, and Google, but you only pay $10 a month. <i>This</i> would be a consumer-only internet that is totally centralized and monopolized - but it&#x27;s still not the whole internet.<p>Then of course there&#x27;s <i>every other business in the world</i> that is not consumer-oriented, all of whom depend on the internet for their business. They also have an interest in a decentralized internet, because it helps them compete with each other, too. They&#x27;d be happy to fund a decentralized internet, if only for themselves.<p>This is all besides the fact that decentralization is actually an architectural decision <i>made by a central organization - the DoD</i>. They made it decentralized because it just works better, not because they wanted the whole world to hold hands and sing kumbaya. Even in this fantasy world of a centralized internet, with one company managing all the consumer services, b2b services, and internet connections, they&#x27;d <i>still</i> keep a decentralized architecture, because they know it&#x27;s really friggin&#x27; robust. The network architecture has nothing to do with who has control.<p>If your concern is monopolies, an internet protocol does not change this at all. If your concern is being able to host your own services, that&#x27;s still at the discretion of your ISP.
zemo超过 5 年前
this article doesn&#x27;t deal at all with DNS so kinda misses like the biggest centralization flaw on the internet but whatever