> However, I disagree with some of the analysis, and have a couple specific points to correct.
-
Christine Lemmer-Webberreplied to Philippa Cowderoy last edited by
@flippac @shtrom There is also a "perimeter security/reputation" approach that people keep trying over and over again that keeps leading to re-centralization
OCapPub writes about this https://gitlab.com/spritely/ocappub/blob/master/README.org
And we are trying to design to prevent it too
-
@viq it likes pets
-
C [email protected] shared this topic
-
Christine Lemmer-Webberreplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
@trwnh it's the best hummus
-
@McNeely A lot of work on standards, other research... though most of my fundamental CS background came from studying SICP
-
Christine Lemmer-Webberreplied to gkrnours last edited by
@gkrnours it's better than nothing if you don't have your meds
-
Christine Lemmer-Webberreplied to Josef Davies-Coates last edited by
@josef Unfortunately every.org doesn't support donations less than $10, but you could make a one-time donation!
-
Christine Lemmer-Webberreplied to Josef Davies-Coates last edited by
@josef Yep oops, fixed
-
O [email protected] shared this topic
-
@cwebber Ok, I’ve read the whole thread, and found it wonderful.
But I have to admit that I still don’t understand why you prefer the term “decentralized” for the sort of system you’re working to build, rather than Baran’s “distributed”.
(Ok, for AP we’d have to define nodes as servers, rather than users. But that aside, “distributed” would work fine.)
-
Christine Lemmer-Webberreplied to Rocketman last edited by
@slothrop It's confusing and in general, people don't do it. What people tend to speak about *is* a power dynamic spectrum.
Baran was dealing with the situation where the term was being used in a specific technical way *at the time he wrote the document*, so he had to introduce another term.
When *most people* today talk about decentralization, they mean the spectrum. We *at least* have to be clear about definitions if you mean something else.
