Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
ICYMI: dustyweb.bsky.social last week published her reply to feedback on her previous blogpost that analyzed Bluesky's decentralization: https://dustycloud.org/blog/re-re-bluesky-decentralization/ My executive summary: ๐งต 1/N
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
1. Running an indexer is expensive, saying "Wikipedia/Internet Archive can do it!" isn't a retort because these are big orgs with big budgets. There's an opportunity here for decentralized indexing, which is a Bitcoin-level hard-distributed-systems-design-problem nut to crack. 2. Bluesky would fail to meet it's UI/UX goals if replies to posts went missing. Missing replies are a feature on Mastodon. Not on Bluesky. This requires something more akin to global consensus, which FC Hubs do. https://dustycloud.org/blog/re-re-bluesky-decentralization/ 3. In the extreme limit, if everyone were to self-host their own PDS (personal data server) and everyone were to run their own Relay & Appview (to index everyone's PDS and run Bluesky independently), that would require everyone-to-everyone message passing...aka scales quadratically ๐. 2/
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
4. But most people are not going to host their own PDS or run Relays/AppViews for Bluesky. You can't have a 'big-world' social network without running 'big-world' infra. You could run a restricted Mastodon-esque cozy clique of PDSs, but anytime those PDS users interact with out-of-network context (comments, retweets, etc), you won't be able to render it properly. 3/
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction