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
P S [LibreList] decentralization Yahoo group 2013-12-08 18:51:32 (5 years 10 mons 8 days 20:21:00 ago)
For those 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



Eric Mill [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] decentralization Yahoo group 2013-12-08 18:53:04 (5 years 10 mons 8 days 20:19:00 ago)
Is there a way for someone to export that?


On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:51 PM, P S <pairspace@gmail.com> wrote:
For those who haven't seen the now-dormant list, it was active in early part of the 00 decade.

7000+ messages on P2P and decentralization:







--
P S [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] decentralization Yahoo group 2013-12-08 19:10:50 (5 years 10 mons 8 days 20:02:00 ago)
Don't think Yahoo supports export.  

Maybe try the list owner? decentralization-owner@yahoogroups.com 

These may provide some ideas:


On Dec 8, 2013, at 18:53, Eric Mill <eric@konklone.com> wrote:

Is there a way for someone to export that?


On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:51 PM, P S <pairspace@gmail.com> wrote:
For those who haven't seen the now-dormant list, it was active in early part of the 00 decade.

7000+ messages on P2P and decentralization:







--
Eric Mill [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] decentralization Yahoo group 2013-12-08 19:16:49 (5 years 10 mons 8 days 19:56:00 ago)
Cool, I wrote the owner. Unfortunately, the yahoo2mbox tool, which the Archive Team references, stopped working in August of this year. :(


On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 7:10 PM, P S <pairspace@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't think Yahoo supports export.  

Maybe try the list owner? decentralization-owner@yahoogroups.com 

These may provide some ideas:


On Dec 8, 2013, at 18:53, Eric Mill <eric@konklone.com> wrote:

Is there a way for someone to export that?


On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 6:51 PM, P S <pairspace@gmail.com> wrote:
For those who haven't seen the now-dormant list, it was active in early part of the 00 decade.

7000+ messages on P2P and decentralization:







--



--
Francis Irving [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] decentralization Yahoo group 2013-12-30 13:36:12 (5 years 9 mons 17 days 01:36:00 ago)
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 those 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/
Feross Aboukhadijeh [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] decentralization Yahoo group 2013-12-30 18:29:36 (5 years 9 mons 16 days 20:43:00 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/

Jeremie Miller [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] decentralization Yahoo group 2013-12-30 19:12:17 (5 years 9 mons 16 days 20:00:00 ago)
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 those 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/
Eric Mill [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] decentralization Yahoo group 2013-12-30 19:48:09 (5 years 9 mons 16 days 19:24:00 ago)
> Open stuff is only used tactically (e.g. Google/Apple using the web to beat Microsoft).

That doesn't sound like a bad thing at all. We want an open, decentralized web because it's useful for the greatest number -- any corporation which is able to take a long term view (and Google has traditionally been pretty good at that) should find a way to make it useful to them. But closed is helpful as a short term club.

I think you can draw a pretty clear line between Google being *forced* to take a short term view -- as they watch indexable content disappear into closed networks, and fewer people wanting/needing to search as things get put in front of them via their networks -- and their deprioritization of open web technologies. See Eric Schmidt's display of righteous anger at Twitter blocking Google from indexing tweets.

-- Eric


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:36 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 those 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/



--
Paul Frazee [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] decentralization Yahoo group 2013-12-30 20:38:25 (5 years 9 mons 16 days 18:34:00 ago)
Regarding what's different, privacy may be more commercially attractive on its own. WebRTC is a decent new piece of tech, and I think browsers are getting thicker.

As for funding, don't know, but be sure to tell me when an idea comes up ;)


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Martin Dittus <martin@dekstop.de> wrote:

This Yahoo group can be a useful measure of relative progress.

It raised some pretty good questions in this thread already: does commercial infrastructure inherently benefit from centralised models? Does there need to be a new type of "open peer-based corporation”? Or rather, how important is it to find alternative funding models in order to produce work of similar quality than the centralised models one intends to replace?

To me it also evoked a more general question — why do we believe that current attempts at decentralised infrastructure will fare any better than the previous generation? What knowledge have we gained since then?

I like the enthusiasm expressed in this thread, but it would be good to hear some stronger answers than the ones given so far in order to avoid a similar (seemingly fruitless) fate.

On 31 Dec 2013, at 02:11, 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

I think that’s an unfortunate example: that’s a decentralised technology used for better centralisation (where a centralised service is large enough to be decentralised internally.) I.e., it does not avoid the reliance on centralised end-user services at all.


On 31 Dec 2013, at 02:29, Feross Aboukhadijeh <feross@feross.org> wrote:

> More P2P in unexpected places :)  https://peercdn.com/

Now acquired by Yahoo. That speaks to their funding model (cf my questions above.)


On 31 Dec 2013, at 01:12, Jeremie Miller <jeremie.miller@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

What new challenges in particular do you have in mind?


m.

Martin Dittus [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] decentralization Yahoo group 2013-12-31 02:34:28 (5 years 9 mons 16 days 12:38:00 ago)
This Yahoo group can be a useful measure of relative progress.

It raised some pretty good questions in this thread already: does commercial infrastructure inherently benefit from centralised models? Does there need to be a new type of "open peer-based corporation”? Or rather, how important is it to find alternative funding models in order to produce work of similar quality than the centralised models one intends to replace?

To me it also evoked a more general question — why do we believe that current attempts at decentralised infrastructure will fare any better than the previous generation? What knowledge have we gained since then? 

I like the enthusiasm expressed in this thread, but it would be good to hear some stronger answers than the ones given so far in order to avoid a similar (seemingly fruitless) fate. 

On 31 Dec 2013, at 02:11, 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 

I think that’s an unfortunate example: that’s a decentralised technology used for better centralisation (where a centralised service is large enough to be decentralised internally.) I.e., it does not avoid the reliance on centralised end-user services at all.


On 31 Dec 2013, at 02:29, Feross Aboukhadijeh <feross@feross.org> wrote:

> More P2P in unexpected places :)  https://peercdn.com/

Now acquired by Yahoo. That speaks to their funding model (cf my questions above.)


On 31 Dec 2013, at 01:12, Jeremie Miller <jeremie.miller@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

What new challenges in particular do you have in mind?


m.
:
:
: