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

[damon@social.wedistribute.org]

@[email protected] @[email protected] Find from what perspective? Christine’s definitions have touched upon price, practicalities etc
I don’t think “fine” is the correct term. Mastodon nonprofit two instances make up 30% of the active MAU, if they shut down it would not be “fine”. I’ve seen plenty of people say mastodon.social is too big to block, that doesn’t reinforce what you’re saying nor several of Christine’s points. The factors are largely what’s practical meaning what’s been adopted by the masses. Idk about you but cutting off 30% wouldn’t qualify as fine in many cases

[trwnh@mastodon.social]

@cwebber was it at least good hummus

[slothrop@chaos.social]

@cwebber Would it be helpful to use the terms “strong” and “weak” decentralization to refer to your and Baran’s / Nottingham’s definitions respectively?

EDIT: No we shouldn’t. See self reply

At least in my head, that seems to work.

[slothrop@chaos.social]

Ahaha I should have read to the end of the section.

We already have perfectly appropriate words for the distinction I’m trying to make, from Paul Baran himself.

They’re “distributed” and “decentralized”.

I really need to learn to keep my mouth shut until the smart people have finished talking.

@cwebber

[gert@social.coop]

@cwebber Also on how it could have ended up in implementation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.25

VC may be established using X.121 addresses. The X.121 address consists of a three-digit data country code (DCC) plus a network digit, together forming the four-digit data network identification code (DNIC), followed by the national terminal number (NTN) of at most ten digits.

[mcneely@indieweb.social]

@cwebber
First off thank you, these threads have been very enlightening. For those of us without the formal CS background is there a portion of something we missed in our learning. I'm just wondering how and where you learned all of this. Is it covered in a traditional CS degree (something I don't have) or more something you've learned over the years of doing standards work yourself?

[cwebber@social.coop]

Hello! I am back at my computer. Today we are going to talk about how ATProto does in terms of scaling. Yes, we know it scales up, and has done an impressive job of doing so!

But what about scaling towards decentralization? Does it scale down? And does it scale wide? Let's look.

[cwebber@social.coop]

Before we get deep into that, when we left last night I was extremely tired and had been working at my computer for over 14 hours. I then said I was going to drive two hours across the state that evening.

Thankfully thanks to the support of people who love me, I did not do that foolish thing!

[cwebber@social.coop]

So anyway, I am better rested, and also I woke up to the surprise that our fundraiser is doing a lot better, like by a lot, than it was yesterday, which is nice because I was extremely stressed out https://spritely.institute/donate/

So I am feeling much better and alive and today I remembered to eat lunch

[cwebber@social.coop]

But you probably aren't here to hear about my lunch choices or how much sleep I got or whether or not I forgot to bring my ADHD medication with me (I did so now I am drinking a bunch of caffeine instead), you are probably here to hear the rest of the analysis about decentralization and Bluesky etc

[cwebber@social.coop]

So let us get to it, let's talk about whether or not Bluesky can scale *down* in a meaningful way.

In my last essay I made assertions that this was important for decentralization and said ATProto wasn't great for this, and this was one thing people challenged me on

So let's take a look!

[cwebber@social.coop]

When I say "scale down", what I generally mean is "small instances can generally participate on the network". (We'll talk about "scale wide" later.) But another useful possibility which has come up is "can you make a smaller, more isolated use-case and use the same protocol for it"

[cwebber@social.coop]

This latter version of scale down does come up in Bryan's article:

> A specific form of scale-down which is an important design goal is that folks building new applications (new Lexicons) can "start small", with server needs proportional to the size of their sub-network.

(cotd)

[cwebber@social.coop]

Strictly speaking, I agree, ATProto can scale down in this use case! For example, if you wanted to make a small specialized forum for collaborative storytelling, you could use ATProto for it, and that's true, you could do it

But is it the right choice?

[cwebber@social.coop]

In some ways we are talking about two different things here: extension of functionality (which you might want the same scale for) and having a smaller and more isolated community

But regardless

[cwebber@social.coop]

ATproto positions itself *specifically* as designed for not wanting to miss messages, and I talked previously about how ATProto's design requires a god's-eye view.

It's a bit strange of a choice when you say "let's run a smaller community"

[cwebber@social.coop]

Given that message passing systems handle small scale systems *beautifully*, and *still* allow for interactions with larger scale systems, it's a bit confusing to me *why* you'd choose ATProto for such use cases. What is the specific benefit you'd gain? Especially because it's actually lossier here

[cwebber@social.coop]

At any rate, there's a bit of conflation here. "It scales down" by saying "you can have an isolated community/use case that's oblivious to the rest of the system" is categorically distinct from "it scales down" in terms of "a small node can meaningfully participate with the larger system"

[cwebber@social.coop]

At any rate, the problem with "scaling down" is much clearer when it comes to the problem of "scaling wide".

Or let me put it a different way: ATProto *explodes in complexity* when you try to scale it towards meaningful decentralization

[cwebber@social.coop]

Yes that's right we're getting to the spicy part of this conversation. We did the warm-up, now it's time to talk about the real thing, whether or not decentralization in the way I believe people *think* that term means is reasonably possible with ATProto as it's currently designed