Comment on Plebbit Will Never Deliver, Apologies for the Hype, Lemmy's Where I’m Staying
TCB13@lemmy.world 2 days agoMy point was: if you still need some central point of contact what’s the point in decentralized, you can still get fucked.
For instance the DHT systems you talk about, they’re good but still require some centralized points. In a bittorrent network with DHT a new client cannot join without either a tracker or the knowledge of at least one member of the network to exchange peers with. Bitcoin still has some hardcoded DNS seeds in the core client… etc.
Nibodhika@lemmy.world 1 day ago
That’s just pedantic, you will always need to know where the door is to enter the network, but in both cases even if that specific server that you know gets taken down you can still enter by any other server you might discover in any other way. It doesn’t cease to be centralized because you are using the same single node to get into the network, that would be like claiming email is not federated because you only use Gmail, or because you need to know the email of the person you’re writing to.
TCB13@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I get your point, those systems make it harder to take down things permanently but they aren’t as resilient and perfect as people paint them to be - an it has nothing to do with being pedantic, it is just the reality of things.
Nibodhika@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It’s still a decentralized system, and saying that they aren’t because the default is for everyone to use the same node is either disingenuous or missing the point entirely. By your definition decentralization is impossible, because you always need to know at least one node in the network in order to enter.
TCB13@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Unless someone finds a way to advertise nodes that doesn’t depend on the entry point then yes. Consider this example: github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/…/chainparams.cpp#L112 if someone takes down those domains it is game over for a new node until someone updates the code.