Redecentralize

more fundamental and more important than infrastructure decentralization. #3 is sort of a philosophical point. Basically I think it's more important to enable lateral communication functionally than to physically decentralize the network. I'm not saying the latter isn't important... just that it's a lot harder /...\ killer apps" for it. It wouldn't go anywhere. This is why one of my goals with this project is to make p2p lateral communication easy on public virtual LANs. The fact that peers use a set of centralized servers to find each other is IMHO secondary... making lateral communication /...\ easy enables people to easily develop killer apps that want to talk laterally. Once these exist, the tail will wag the dog. What do I mean by this distinction? Functional decentralization means I can run any app you can, I own my data, and we can make direct connections without

more fundamental and more important than infrastructure decentralization. #3 is sort of a philosophical point. Basically I think it's more important to enable later al communication functionally than to physically decentralize the network. I'm not saying the latter isn't important... just that it's a lot harder /...\ killer apps" for it. It wouldn't go anywhere. This is why one of my goals with this project is to make p2p lateral communication easy on public virtual LANs. The fact that peers use a set of centralized servers to find each other is IMHO secondary... making lateral communication /...\ easy enables people to easily develop killer apps that want to talk laterally. Once these exist, the tail will wag the dog. What do I mean by this distinction? Functional decentralization means I can run any app you can, I own my data, and we can make direct connections without

more fundamental and more important than infrastructure decentralization. #3 is sort of a philosophical point. Basically I think it's more important to enable later al communication functionally than to physically decentralize the network. I'm not saying the latter isn't important... just that it's a lot harder /...\ killer apps" for it. It wouldn't go anywhere. This is why one of my goals with this project is to make p2p lateral communication easy on public virtual LANs. The fact that peers use a set of centralized servers to find each other is IMHO secondary... making lateral communication /...\ easy enables people to easily develop killer apps that want to talk laterally. Once these exist, the tail will wag the dog. What do I mean by this distinction? Functional decentralization means I can run any app you can, I own my data, and we can make direct connections without

more fundamental and more important than infrastructure decentralization. #3 is sort of a philosophical point. Basically I think it's more important to enable later al communication functionally than to physically decentralize the network. I'm not saying the latter isn't important... just that it's a lot harder /...\ killer apps" for it. It wouldn't go anywhere. This is why one of my goals with this project is to make p2p lateral communication easy on public virtual LANs. The fact that peers use a set of centralized servers to find each other is IMHO secondary... making lateral communication /...\ easy enables people to easily develop killer apps that want to talk laterally. Once these exist, the tail will wag the dog. What do I mean by this distinction? Functional decentralization means I can run any app you can, I own my data, and we can make direct connections without

more fundamental and more important than infrastructure decentralization. #3 is sort of a philosophical point. Basically I think it's more important to enable later al communication functionally than to physically decentralize the network. I'm not saying the latter isn't important... just that it's a lot harder /...\ killer apps" for it. It wouldn't go anywhere. This is why one of my goals with this project is to make p2p lateral communication easy on public virtual LANs. The fact that peers use a set of centralized servers to find each other is IMHO secondary... making lateral communication /...\ easy enables people to easily develop killer apps that want to talk laterally. Once these exist, the tail will wag the dog. What do I mean by this distinction? Functional decentralization means I can run any app you can, I own my data, and we can make direct connections without

more fundamental and more important than infrastructure decentralization. #3 is sort of a philosophical point. Basically I think it's more important to enable later al communication functionally than to physically decentralize the network. I'm not saying the latter isn't important... just that it's a lot harder /...\ killer apps" for it. It wouldn't go anywhere. This is why one of my goals with this project is to make p2p lateral communication easy on public virtual LANs. The fact that peers use a set of centralized servers to find each other is IMHO secondary... making lateral communication /...\ easy enables people to easily develop killer apps that want to talk laterally. Once these exist, the tail will wag the dog. What do I mean by this distinction? Functional decentralization means I can run any app you can, I own my data, and we can make direct connections without

similar to our ideas for Askemos (though ethereum is even closer).  Except that we immediately scaled back to leave browser integration for later. A decade of experience later and having released a usable, self-hosting system I can account the resources it took.  We had four

David Burns wrote: > Apparently I scraped a nerve, but you did ask for critique. I went > back and looked at the later bits, I liked part three. I > particularly liked your answer to the person who wanted to claim > that the standards process requires centralization. Perhaps /...\ Maybe the >> talk got there eventually, but I stopped watching before then. >> Maybe I'll try again later and skip past the complaining. Dave >> > > Oh dear. Never mind. > > My aim was to show a clear and reasonable movement of thought

pretty similar to our ideas for Askemos (though ethereum is even closer).  Except that we immediately scaled back to leave browser integration for later. A decade of experience later and having released a usable, self-hosting system I can account the resources it took.  We had four people

Apparently I scraped a nerve, but you did ask for critique. I went back and looked at the later bits, I liked part three. I particularly liked your answer to the person who wanted to claim that the standards process requires centralization.  Perhaps /...\ about what we can do. Maybe the > talk got there eventually, but I stopped watching before then. > Maybe I'll try again later and skip past the complaining. Dave > Oh dear. Never mind. My aim was to show a clear and reasonable movement of thought and analysis

long (e.g. do mobile as a separate post). Would rather it shipped and was readably short, than comprehensive! Can add further posts later... Francis * In the end, we obviously don't want this stuff to only be usable by power users. But given your description below, that's realistically where

working with cultural organizations there and have them collaborate and share media which they create. Share, not initially with the world (that comes later), but with each other - for starters, and hope to provide a platform for the same and fan out from there. Same is the case

used in lots of ways. If you have some other decentralized identification system, you can then use WebRTC on top of it somehow later. Francis On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 09:46:31PM -0600, Paul Frazee wrote: > No kidding about the diagram. > > Interesting statement

used in lots of ways. If you have some other decentralized identification system, you can then use WebRTC on top of it somehow later. Francis On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 09:46:31PM -0600, Paul Frazee wrote: > No kidding about the diagram. > > Interesting statement

combining Redecentralize, Spring of Code and TA3M. (TA3M meetings are usually on the 3rd Monday of the month, but we can worry about that later!) Marc Barto, the Spring of Code organiser, has suggested the Centre for Creative Collaboration (C4CC) in King's Cross as a possible venue. http://creative-collaboration.net

Spring of Code and TA3M. > (TA3M meetings are usually on the 3rd Monday of the month, but we > can worry about that later!) > > Marc Barto, the Spring of Code organiser, has suggested the Centre > for Creative Collaboration (C4CC) in King's Cross as a possible

working in these places cannot spend time to have this discussion with the stakeholders involved, I would actually prefer not providing access (postponing for later). This would have sounded crazy to me 3-4 years ago, but is perhaps why I'm subscribed to this list right now :-) Through

hear about what we can do. Maybe the talk got there eventually, but I stopped watching before then. Maybe I'll try again later and skip past the complaining. Dave On Friday, July 25, 2014, Tic Nticsebastian < patrick.sebastian7@gmail.com > wrote: Indeed that was a very good talk

about what we can do. Maybe the > talk got there eventually, but I stopped watching before then. > Maybe I'll try again later and skip past the complaining. Dave > Oh dear. Never mind. My aim was to show a clear and reasonable movement of thought and analysis

these places cannot spend time to > have this discussion with the stakeholders involved, I would actually > prefer not providing access (postponing for later). This would have > sounded crazy to me 3-4 years ago, but is perhaps why I'm subscribed to > this list right

these places cannot spend time to > have this discussion with the stakeholders involved, I would actually > prefer not providing access (postponing for later). This would have > sounded crazy to me 3-4 years ago, but is perhaps why I'm subscribed to > this list right

cannot spend time to > > have this discussion with the stakeholders involved, I would actually > > prefer not providing access (postponing for later). This would have > > sounded crazy to me 3-4 years ago, but is perhaps why I'm > subscribed to > > this