Conversation

Notices

1. silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Apr-2024 00:30:38 JST silverpill

   • Strypey
   • Raphael Lullis
   • Hyolobrika

   @Hyolobrika @strypey @raphael

   It's all good in theory but in practice "trustless" simply means that trust relationships are obscured. If you want to go trustless you go in the woods and live like hunter-gatherer. In a complex society there is always someone who is running things. The only choice you have is between someone who is close to you (that autocrat who actually might be your friend) and someone who is far away (the developer who is taking VC money and doesn't give a shit about your problems)

   Technological tricks that increase your power as a user (key based identity, data portability) can work in both kinds of systems.

   • silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Apr-2024 02:01:29 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • Strypey
     • Raphael Lullis
     • Hyolobrika

     @Hyolobrika @strypey @raphael I just don't think these ideas are new. Most political ideas don't work. Ideas that work generally lead to one of the two outcomes I previously described: many small autocrats or one big organization that controls everything

   • Hyolobrika (hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Apr-2024 02:01:30 JST Hyolobrika

     in reply to

     • Strypey
     • Raphael Lullis
     • Hyolobrika
     That's a common fallacy I see people make. Just because a new idea won't be perfect, doesn't mean it's not better than the status quo.
   • Hyolobrika (hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Apr-2024 02:01:31 JST Hyolobrika

     in reply to

     • Strypey
     • Raphael Lullis

     Whether the person is my friend or not, all other things being equal, it’s better for him to have less power than more. And even if he is my friend, he might not be other users’.

     Technological tricks that increase your power as a user (key based identity, data portability) can work in both kinds of systems.

     Yes, but can radically new (for the internet) political systems such as those I described?

   • silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Apr-2024 02:21:00 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • Strypey
     • Raphael Lullis
     • Hyolobrika

     @Hyolobrika @strypey @raphael As far as I know Aether and Freenet are single implementations and fully depend on their developers. Only a few people use them so we don't even know how they scale.

     IPFS is owned by Protocol Labs, and there are no independent implementations. IPFS will disappear along with Protocol Labs. Also, after all those years it is still too slow for the web and useless without gateways. Torrents is the only system in your list that is truly decentralized. However, they are only successful because trackers exist

   • Hyolobrika (hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Apr-2024 02:21:01 JST Hyolobrika

     in reply to

     • Strypey
     • Raphael Lullis

     Can you go into more detail? What trust relationships are there but obscured in, say, Aether, or Freenet, or IPFS, or BitTorrent?

   • silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Apr-2024 05:12:13 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • Strypey
     • Raphael Lullis
     • Hyolobrika

     @Hyolobrika @strypey @raphael Trustless is not bad, it is a meaningless buzzword. Even if you use a perfect peer to peer system you need to trust people who maintain it. Even if they are benevolent, they can remove some feature that is very important for you or abandon the project, and this is just as bad as admin who is banning you from the server

   • Hyolobrika (hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Apr-2024 05:12:14 JST Hyolobrika

     in reply to

     • Strypey
     • Raphael Lullis
     That can change, and that's a trust relationship that exists regardless of how centralised or trustless a protocol is. I still don't see why it's bad for a protocol to be trustless.
   • Hyolobrika (hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Apr-2024 05:33:12 JST Hyolobrika

     in reply to

     • Strypey
     • Raphael Lullis
     But you have to trust the developers somewhat anyway. The difference is that with a centralised or federated protocol you have to trust developers plus server admins whereas with a P2P (or to some degree otherwise key-based) protocol you just have to trust developers.
     Put that way it's obvious which is better.
   • silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Tuesday, 09-Apr-2024 05:33:12 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • Strypey
     • Raphael Lullis
     • Hyolobrika

     @Hyolobrika @strypey @raphael It is not that simple because perfect p2p doesn't exist and in federations you have more choice. But if you compare these models on a high level then yes p2p is better.

   • silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Wednesday, 10-Apr-2024 02:53:56 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • Hyolobrika

     @Hyolobrika

     Right on time: https://blog.ipfs.tech/shipyard-hello-world/

     >Now we’re delighted to announce our own "exit to community"

     Which basically means "we're cutting expenses, now you're on your own"

     Good news for #torrents community I guess

   • silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Wednesday, 10-Apr-2024 03:50:54 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • Hyolobrika

     @Hyolobrika Yes, I'm happy to see this. But those who depend on IPFS should be worried, because it doesn't have a strong community of volunteer contributors and may not survive

   • Hyolobrika (hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Wednesday, 10-Apr-2024 03:50:55 JST Hyolobrika

     in reply to
     Isn't that what you wanted though?