Paul Frazee [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] Introduction 2014-01-06 13:18:13 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
Adam Ierymenko [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] Introduction 2014-01-06 10:51:29 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
Adam Ierymenko [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] Introduction 2014-01-06 11:40:41 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
Paul Frazee [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] Introduction 2014-01-06 13:46:47 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
Adam Ierymenko [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] Introduction 2014-01-06 11:50:49 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
Paul Frazee [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] Introduction 2014-01-06 13:53:30 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).Â
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
Benjamin Heitmann [LibreList] Any updates on the un-conference? 2015-09-14 12:32:33
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.Â
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
Francis Irving [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] Hello! 2013-12-10 01:52:00 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
Michael Rogers [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] february meetup 2014-01-15 12:09:21 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
Nicholas H.Tollervey [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] february meetup 2014-01-15 14:03:18 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