This is a little bit more black and white compared with the other responses. 🙈
Comment on Angry, disappointed users react to Bluesky's upcoming blue check mark verification system
MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day agoNope, it’s 100% centralized.
victorz@lemmy.world 1 day ago
lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 hours ago
It’s 100% centralized, but with the ability to be decentralized. Sorta like Threads before they started federating
MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 hours ago
Sure, but until it actually gets used significantly in that way, we might as well just say it’s centralized.
sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 hours ago
The “ability” to decentralize has costs that scale quadratically. So in every practical sense, it cannot be decentralized. At best it could have a few servers that participate.
Natanael@infosec.pub 6 hours ago
No, it doesn’t scale “quadratically”. That’s what going viral on Mastodon does to a small instance, not on bluesky. Pretty much everything scales linearly. The difference is certain components handle a larger fraction of the work (appview and relay).
Both a bluesky appview and a Mastodon instance scales by the size of the userbase which it interacts with. Mastodon likes to imagine that the userbase will always be consistent, but it isn’t. Anything viewed by a large part of the whole Mastodon network forces the host to serve the entirety of the network and all its interactions. So does a bluesky appview, in just the same way, but they acknowledge this upfront.
Meanwhile, you CAN host a bluesky PDS account host and have your traffic scale only by the rate of your users’ activity + number of relays you push these updates to. Going viral doesn’t kill your bandwidth.