Login

Redecentralize

We’ve had enough of digital monopolies and surveillance capitalism. We want an alternative world that works for everyone, just like the original intention of the web and net.

We seek a world of open platforms and protocols with real choices of applications and services for people. We care about privacy, transparency and autonomy. Our tools and organisations should fundamentally be accountable and resilient.

Home

Parent
Feross Aboukhadijeh [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] decentralization Yahoo group 2013-12-30 18:29:36 (5 years 9 mons 15 days 01:43:00 ago)
More P2P in unexpected places :)  https://peercdn.com/

Feross
✩ blog | ✎ studynotes | ✼ peercdn | ☮ webtorrent


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Louise Ishka <tearmann@outlook.com> wrote:
I agree with Jer.

We are seeing P2P tech turn up in unexpected places
https://blog.twitter.com/2010/murder-fast-datacenter-code-deploys-using-bittorrent

Personally I started to get involved around the time JXTA (2001) was making an appearance and I am starting to see the challenges that Jer referred to coming through.

Specifically over the past year I have worked on a couple of commercial P2P type technology solutions compared to none over the previous 15 years.

But xkcd summarizes those types of data points more succinctly :)

http://xkcd.com/605/ 




> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:12:17 -0600
> From: jeremie.miller@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [redecentralize] decentralization Yahoo group
> To: redecent ralize@librelist.com

>
> I was (am) on that list, my best take on what happened was none of that tech solved real problems better than centralizing did :/
>
> I believe that's changing though and the next generation of challenges will be better served by decentralized solutions.
>
> Jer
>
> > On Dec 30, 2013, at 7:36 AM, Francis Irving <francis@flourish.org> wrote:
> >
> > This archive is pretty amazing.
> >
> > e.g. someone back in 2000 looking at the stack (in those days,
> > Gnutella, WorldOS, FreeNet) and trying to work out what the structure
> > should be, just like I often think about now.
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/decentralization/conversations/messages/26
> >
> > e.g. a latish post in 2007, someone asking "why hasn't any of this
> > worked, it's all got more centralized", to which the sophisticated
> > answer is that we need a new type of open peer-based corporation...
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/decentralization/conversations/messages/6908
> >
> > The take home from my brief skim is that the forces of capitalism
> > creating revenue flow are what won it for centralization. Open stuff
> > is only used tactically (e.g. Google/Apple using the web to beat
> > Microsoft).
> >
> > So yeah, new initiatives should pay a *lot* of head for that. The time
> > has gone for naive geeks hoping good tech will "go viral".
> >
> > It needs money to spend on sales teams and TV adverts...
> >
> > Anyone here on that list, and have any conclusions about what we
> > should learn about it and the whole 2000-2010 period?
> >
> > Francis
> >
> >> On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 06:51:32PM -0500, P S wrote:
> >> For tho se who haven't seen the now-dormant list, it was active in early part of the 00 decade.

> >>
> >> 7000+ messages on P2P and decentralization:
> >>
> >> http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/decentralization/conversations/messages
> >
> > --
> > Do *you* have an awesome idea you never quite manage to do?
> > http://www.awesomefoundation.org/en/chapters/liverpool/

: