> However, I disagree with some of the analysis, and have a couple specific points to correct.

[unixbigot@aus.social]

@cwebber @spritely Fighter planes don’t even NEED two wings. Why isn’t the war insurance senate committee denying these unnecessary claims?

The full story of the F-15 pilot who landed with one wing

Believe it or not, the legendary F-15 Eagle once landed with only one wing after a mid-flight collision tore the other one off.

Sandboxx (www.sandboxx.us)

[cwebber@social.coop]

And yes of course it is literally the paper that gives us this incredible FIGURE 1, which you have CERTAINLY seen if you have ever heard ANYONE talk about ANY "decentralized" or "distributed" system ever

CENTRALIZED DECENTRALIZED DISTRIBUTED

You know this image. You could never forget this image

[viq@social.hackerspace.pl]

@cwebber Second Secret Goblin doesn't judge, only nudges you to share hummus

[cwebber@social.coop]

One of the reasons you know this image is that everyone worth their salt who works on decentralized networks thinks about this image and puts it in their talks

But also so does this bro who has literally no idea about how tech works but thinks he does

So one way or another you're gonna see it

(tech bro courtesy https://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/job-interviews)

[cwebber@social.coop]

That comic is from Three Panel Soul btw, and here's the link https://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/job-interviews

All of Three Panel Soul is good, but the Tech Bro ones are my favorites https://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/search/Tech%20Bro

I love Three Panel Soul so much

(Gonna weird out @3psboyd by fangirling over here)

*COUGH* where was I

[cwebber@social.coop]

"Christine if you love this paper so much why don't you like the definition of 'decentralized' from it?!"

The definition is great actually if you know the context

Because the context is CRITICIZING THE DESIGN UNDER THE DEFINITION AS A FORM OF CENTRALIZATION

[cwebber@social.coop]

"What Christine you can't mean that, why would 'decentralized' be 'centralized' that can't be true"

Because because BECAUSE my good friend, Baran was describing "decentralization", a term that ALREADY EXISTED in networking, as being a kind of centralized system

NO REALLY I AM SERIOUS

[cwebber@social.coop]

The term "decentralized" was *already* in active use! So Baran was providing "distributed" as the new term! Oh my god THAT'S WHY THE DEFINITION BARAN PROVIDED FOR DECENTRALIZATION WAS SO WEAK

You don't believe me? Let me show you. LET ME SHOW YOU

[cwebber@social.coop]

Here is where Baran defines "decentralization!" We have to read the whole definition!
You're not allowed to stop until we finish EVERY (cotd) let's GOOOO

> The centralized network is obviously vulnerable as destruction of a single central node destroys communication between the end station.

(cotd)

[jsbarretto@social.coop]

@cwebber It is the middle of the night and I am worried that reading this post in my head is going to wake my dog

[cwebber@social.coop]

Baran "decentralization" cotd:

> In practice, a mixture of star and mesh components is used to form communication networks.

IN PRACTICE FOR CENTRALIZED SYSTEMS YOU GUYS

(cotd)

[cwebber@social.coop]

Baran "decentralization" cotd:

> For example, type (b) in Fig. 1 shows the hierarchical structure of a set of stars connected in the form of a larger star with an additional link forming a loop.

OH SHIT HE'S STILL TALKING ABOUT CENTRALIZATION FIGURE B IS THE MIDDLE ONE

(cotd)

[cwebber@social.coop]

Baran "decentralization" cotd:

> Such a network is sometimes called a "decentralized" network, because complete reliance upon a single point is not always required.

OKAY WE'RE DONE

But look at it all together! He's talking about how "decentralization" is a term of art but it's still CENTRALIZED

[cwebber@social.coop]

Baran didn't make up the term "decentralized" it already was being used in practice to talk about top-down hierarchical systems! Baran calls this version centralized even if there's a "loop" (a small number of top-level providers)!

YOU GUYS THIS IS NOT HOW WE ARE USING "DECENTRALIZED"

[cwebber@social.coop]

WE are not describing the future of routing small packets in 1964, that is NOT the world we are existing in, where "decentralized" meant a top-down hierarchical structure

When WE talk about "decentralized", we mean roughly a spectrum, with "centralized" on one side and "decentralized" on the other

[cwebber@social.coop]

Now I don't think Bryan Newbold realized that when he pulled his definition from Mark Nottingham who pulled his definition from Paul Baran, that this was the case. I think this is a game of telephone.

(I don't know how Mark Nottingham didn't realize it but that's an aside)

[cwebber@social.coop]

What I DO know is that it means that the entire structure of analyzing decentralization in Mark's paper and Bryan's blogpost thus, in practice, surround a term that is weak because it was FUNDAMENTALLY describing a centralized system, so it could criticize it

The loss of context here is BRUTAL

[cwebber@social.coop]

To conflate the two *automatically* introduces decentralization-washing. I don't think this is intentional, but it explains a lot.

It explains how a "weak" definition of decentralization could come from one of the boldest visions of what that very *idea* could be

[cwebber@social.coop]

Now okay let's point out the irony here because I feel like if I don't I'm being mean. Bryan does say:

> To some degree, I don't really want to spend time in a terminology debate.

And I just did! At length!

But the whole debate this whole time is "is Bluesky decentralized" so we kinda HAVE to

[cwebber@social.coop]

But also what happened was:

- I lay out a strong definition of decentralization; Bluesky doesn't match
- Bryan suggests an alternate definition, pulls
from
- An RFC which despite the title is extremely lukewarm AT BEST about decentralization which pulls from
- A definition describing centralization