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
mempko [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] The Cloud's Shadow on Grass Computing 2015-04-03 08:45:25 (4 years 3 mons 13 days 14:32:00 ago)
<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Yes! I have read that paper and I agree
      with Adam. Thank you for reminding me of that post.<br>
      <br>
      I built <a href="http://firestr.com/">Fire★</a> on similar
      principles. <br>
      What is the smallest amount of fixed points to get the system to
      work, but my reason for doing it is slightly different than
      Adam's.<br>
      <br>
      Yes, it is HARD to get a distributed systems to work, but only if
      we try to treat them as a single system! Lots of distributed
      systems research is based on this notion, "How can I build a
      multi-node system that appears to be one."<br>
      <br>
      If we abandon this notion where it makes sense, then it becomes
      much easier. Why are DHT hard? Because we want to distribute a
      hash table across machines and treat it like one! But then again,
      do we need one hash table? And if we do, should it be distributed?<br>
      <br>
      I propose we abandon the notion that a all distributed system
      should act like one system. Probably the only reason we think so
      is because corporations really care about this notion. But a free
      society?<br>
      <br>
      There are four modes of communication we do, public/anonymous,
      private/anonymous, public/known, private/known. Now the question
      is which modes of communication should act like many systems and
      which should act like one system. Here is my thinking:<br>
      <br>
      O = One System<br>
      D = distributed<br>
      <br>
      <br>
                       anonymous |    known<br>
      --------------------------------------------------------<br>
      public    |         O          |        O<br>
      --------------------------------------------------------<br>
      private  |         D          |        D<br>
      <br>
      <br>
      The analogy would be the difference between your house and the
      public square. And talking to many or one person. <br>
      <br>
      Corporations want everything to act like one system because they
      need control. This is obviously stupid. <br>
      <br>
      <a href="http://firestr.com/">Fire★</a> falls on the private/known
      mode of communication, and I am not attempting to make it anything
      else.  ZeroTier One can act as public or private and it makes
      sense to me why he chose some central points to handle the public
      case. Because to handle the public case, you need something that
      kind of looks like one system, and distributed systems that look
      like one system are HARD and you have to deal with CAP. <br>
      <br>
      The developers trying to make decentralized public communication
      systems have a huge hill to climb and they need resources that
      corporations are simply not interested in providing. I really feel
      for them!<br>
      <br>
      I heard ZeroTier One got some seed funding. This is great!
      However, I suspect it would not have been possible if Adam build a
      completely decentralized system. Since he has some control points,
      it appears some capitalist thinks there is an upside. I am all for
      taking money out of capitalists if it means more decentralized
      systems get investment like ZeroTier. And I hope Adam reads my
      blog post about the dangers he faces ahead. He will have an uphill
      battle in keeping it decentralized and in the communities control.<br>
      <br>
      And your question about market forces? My answer would be, what
      market forces? I don't believe the technologies are chosen because
      the market chooses them. An example for you is one you may deal
      with many times in your life. Every time you go to a super market,
      or any store, someone has chosen what is put on the shelf.
      Countless decisions are made for you before you make your choice.
      Your typical interaction with the economy is going to distribution
      systems, not markets.<br>
      <br>
      The internet was different for a while. However, you may have
      noticed the trend of people using phones and tablets and get their
      software not from markets, but distribution systems like app
      stores. I fear the ideal that markets do the right thing is a joke
      because they are impossible to have in a capitalist society. <br>
      <br>
      Max<br>
      <br>
      P.S.<br>
      <br>
      I like to write a lot, sorry for the wall of text.<br>
      <br>
      <br>
      <br>
      <br>
      Brian Cloutier wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAA+iFE8mVQEsu-D0bB3Z2zJ-cHP4GJnuavAOdrFGcK-paoJ=uQ@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">Thanks for posting! I enjoyed the link to
        Telekommunism, "venture communism" is a fun phrase.<br>
        <br>
        <div>Your post reminds me of another sent to this list, <a
            moz-do-not-send="true"
            href="http://adamierymenko.com/decentralization-i-want-to-believe/">I
            want to believe.</a></div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>You focus on funding, it's easier to monetize centralized
          services so more venture capital is poured into creating them.
          The other post mentions technical difficulties, distributed
          systems are <i>hard </i>and getting them to work even when
          you trust each piece to act in good faith is difficult.
          Writing a distributed system which is also a good product is
          harder than simply writing a good product; centralization
          helps you outcompete.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>How might we get around these pretty substantial market
          forces? </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 8:01 PM mempko
          &lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mempko@gmail.com">mempko@gmail.com</a>&gt;
          wrote:<br>
          <blockquo te="" class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
            .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi All,<br>
            <br>
            I thought you guys/gals would like this post I made.<br>
            <br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mempko.wordpress.com/2015/04/02/the-shadow-of-the-cloud-on-grass-computing/"
              target="_blank">https://mempko.wordpress.com/2015/04/02/the-shadow-of-the-cloud-on-grass-computing/</a><br>
            <br>
            Let me know what you think and any corrections I can make.<br>
            I personally enjoy both the technical and the
            social/political issues of<br>
            decentralized software and I hope some of you do too.<br>
            <br>
            Cheers!<br>
            Max<br>
          </blockquo></div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>
: