For a while I have been thinking "bitcoin and crypto currency only exist on the "block chain" which is just a large database that every user shares. There should be a way to use that technology to run applications, websites and so on.
And apparently someone actually have the knowledge to do stuff like that scmp.com
Do you look forward to your decentralized future?
...
>use that technology to run applications, websites and so on.
That's what ethereum is about
>Do you look forward to your decentralized future?
I would, were it going to happen. In what fantastical universe are we ever going to get large numbers of people to use a far more complicated internet that eats their bandwidth and disk space to serve other people's requests?
It's late, complicated, heavy and lacking in advantages, if I didn't have an ideological conviction about decentralization, why the fuck would I bother?
I can't fucking wait. Once these technologies become normalised I won''t have to deal with faggots like google and whover tries to replace them. I honestly hope decentralised networks will form the deathblow to google. If google falls before decentralised networks are ready, things will be set back extremely far, as google does provide some very important services, and it will take tremendous amounts of time and effort to replace them if google crashes hard.
For instance, there needs to be a decentralised internet archive. The replacement will have to be of all current major archives(although I'm not worried about the scope of sites like archive.org, it would be a pronlem if it were to go down as well), and google has a considerable archive. We need to get google's archives while they're still up, and have a working decentralised system that archives everything new, while also containing all of the old stuff.
The point is, if google goes down before decentralised networks overtake it, much of the resources google currently has will be lost to the ether.
What's important is that these tools are developed quickly, and are able to catch on. We need more things that work out of the box, I think the TOR browser bundle is a good example. It's just not marketed well enough.
>In what fantastical universe are we ever going to get large numbers of people to use a far more complicated internet that eats their bandwidth and disk space to serve other people's requests?
Bandwidth don't cost anything for normal consumers in most countries and disk space is reasonably cheap. If it's easy to use people will use it.
>if I didn't have an ideological conviction about decentralization, why the fuck would I bother?
Then just make it better and easier to use.
Were going to need it in the future honestly with the way these corporations are using censorship and are more self aware that platforms like Sup Forums exist.
>someone actually have the knowledge to do stuff like that
Except that they don't.
GNUnet
Well... People have been able to make some proof of concept stuff. If even just decentralized from a server point of view like the social media "site" Diaspora
Steemit is a blogging service based on a blockchain.
The Internet is already decentralized you stupid fucking mongo.
he was talking about services. fucking aspie
Plenty decentralized services exist already, IRC is a perfect example of a decentralized chat platform. BitTorrent is another decentralized protocol.
Are people here literally 12 year olds or are they just completely ignorant as to how computer networking works?
>IRC is a perfect example of a decentralized chat platform.
>Are people here literally 12 year olds or are they just completely ignorant as to how computer networking works?
>what are netsplits
IRC isn't decentralized
it can be done in a distributed fashion (multiple servers handling the same IRC network), however
decentralized systems have no servers, clients connect only to other clients, if there are servers, they're only for non-critical purposes like bootstrapping/fast peer discovery, and don't facilitate data transfer between clients
>decentralized systems have no servers
Those are fully decentralized peer-to-peer systems. IRC is clearly a decentralized system (albeit partial), otherwise netsplits wouldn't be a thing. What you are talking about is a P2P system where all that participate in the network are considered equals. But there are plenty of decentralized systems, where not all nodes are equals. Tor, for example, is another such system. You have trusted nodes and untrusted nodes.
"not fully centralized or decentralized" is what distributed is
it gives you multiple points of failure and entry, but clients are still just clients
it's like a decentralized network of servers, which together act like a central server for clients to connect to, this is a pretty common configuration, it's more fault-tolerant than a single server, but provides the same level of centralized control as a single server
Your picture proves me right. In IRC, you have many clients connecting to multiple servers, as depicted in your picture as (B). Netsplits happen when links between central nodes go down.
i swapped "decentralized" and "distributed"
allow me to go sit in the corner