Eugen RochkoHm, I actually don't know if there's a word for it, but I was talking about blockchains with someone, and one of my points is that the blockchain is decentralized, but also kind of isn't, in the sense that there is only one ledger that everyone shares. This as a counterpoint to a federated system like Mastodon, where every server can exist independently of others. Is there a word for this?
Rotating Skull@Gargron Whatever this word is, it also describes the DNS system right?
@rotatingskull Yes, I think
@Gargron Okay. So perhaps an important difference is that in, say, the DNS system, the center of the hub (the borg queen, heh) can be shut down temporarily and the collectice will continue to function fine for a while. But the queen must eventually be replaced or the system can’t grow or change at all.
Whereas with Masto, if your fork disappears, other forks could take over as with Linux and most FOSS projects.
So the software is fungible but the user list is essential.
@Gargron Email is in effect no different because it relies on the DNS too. In fact perhaps the only truly decentralized system is managing your own IP address to names list like in the old, old days.
Except that system still relies on IP addresses.
So then where this conversation leads is to mesh networks being the only truly decentralied system. (I am not advocating for mesh networks and I barely understand them). But that’s where this logic goes right?
@rotatingskull I'm not sure it's meaningful to go down to transport layers when talking about "business logic" layers. Like, as someone else in the thread already mentioned, facebook has thousands of servers powering itself. But we wouldn't call that distributed or decentralized in *this* context
@Gargron Okay. Good point. So then perhaps the deeper question is not how many computers are there and where are they physicall located, and instead, who is controlling the most important computers?
In the case of the DNS it’s supposedly an international consortium accountable to many people worldwide, which makes DNS decentralized even though there is one master list that the system needs to function.
@Gargron Perhaps in any human system (library, networked computers, government) there is a most important node. The question may then be: Whom does that node serve?
@Gargron Here’s another question. Would a decentralized network of fascists be an acceptable result of this Mastodon project to you? (I think it would not be). So then your (our?) real goal here is a bit more complicated than simply decentralization. Decentralization is a means to an end. What is the end? #teleology
Henry Edward HardyStraw man argument much?
@hhardy01 Um, no. I don’t see how this comment has anything to do with the concept of a strawman in discourse.
Let's try again, shall we?
You appear to be making a straw man argument and engaging in whataboutism--tu quoque--namely, "what about if fascists made a decentralized network."
But you understood me perfectly well the first time didn't you?
@hhardy01 Yes, but what you’re describing is not a strawman. A strawman is not asking a question about possible contingencies. A strawman is a very different thing.
@hhardy01 Imagining possible worlds is a huge part of philosophy, the field that invented the idea of a strawman. Strawmanning is a very different, bad faith practice.
@hhardy01 I will not bore you with the details as they are easily available. I suggest you read about strawmen in rhetoric at your leisure. Thank you.