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.


Jörg F. Wittenberger [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] Thoughts on decentralization and deperimeterization 2014-09-04 13:20:45 (6 years 4 mons 4 days 09:11:00 ago)

Am 02.09.2014 21:16, schrieb holger krekel:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 11:07 -0700, Adam Ierymenko wrote:
>> Oh sure, that would work.
>> What I really wanted to demonstrate is this: how *easy* it would be to massively decentralize a lot of things if all the firewall/NAT cruft were out of the way.
> Network routing is certainly one important aspect of decentralization.
> But suppose Google now served Search & Gmail via a ZeroTierOne Earth
> Address.  I'd think they would again quickly be able to create a rather
> centralized traffic point within the network topology because of:
> 1. Ownership: company control of the server, its code, resulting usage data,
>     screen space coming to attention of users, all useful for tracking
>     and showing ads which brings monetization.

So: we need to replace servers by some service running at the users end 
of the wire.

(Like some script running in browser's cache, secretly downloading 
missing components on demand from something akin to git.)

Two effects: a) no more tracking (+) b) no money from tracking (-).

> 2. Easy Deployment: current web technology makes it easy to control
>     the client-side code from a server (javascript/browsers),
>     allowing to reduce latency and to do code upgrades without
>     manual intervention on the client side.  Just go to "google @ ZT1 earth"
>     and enjoy.

Latency would be even better.  Once download.  Following requests are 
handled locally.

> 3. Sustainability: the resources (earned via ads, see above) to
>     invest into polishing the software and the experience, allowing it to
>     build new services (GOTO 1)

Bingo!  This kind of project can easily eat a lifetime.  It can burn 
thousands of <currency>, feed dozens of developers for a couple of 
years… and still eventually starve for being not profitable.

> IOW I think there is more to decentralization than the network topology
> and the raw IP protocol.  However I do agree with you, Adam, that NATs
> are making it even harder to grow sustained decentralized deployments of
> software and services.  But we also need to consider monetization or
> economical sustainability

Can't agree more.

> well evolved forms of collective deployments of software.

That's an oxymoron.

Developers will never allow collective deployments of software to 
evolve. They rather reinvent the wheel for "not invented here", "not the 
favorite language" or outright ignorance delivering old wine in new 
skins (Eth.