Obviously let's not make the decentralization measurement a false dichotomy. Maybe we are splitting hairs? I was more focused on the DHT side of things, but i still don't understand that fully.
That makes sense, but then nostr:npub1tsrh6g3etzdahj0jgnvec86z0sqw7yhkcq9l578m4tyv8v5976yseatmmg 'a point was that pear is more decentralized, if users don't even have to store their own data, how does that make it more decentralized? Doesn't that just mean it's like traditional social media or apps with the option to be decentralized? Won't making it optional just make things trend towards centralization?
Discussion
I definitely think both are decentralized. Just trying to discuss the incentives in either protocol. I guess technically both protocols allow leaches. But I'm failing the see the benefit of one VS the other.
Well, based on my lack of understanding the DHT, the DHT is harder to attack. I am not aware of any attacks yet on nostr, but that doesn't mean it hasn't. Bittorrent has withstood the test of time. I don't see why nostr can, or maybe already has implemented the features of bittorrent.
The massive benefit of the pear model is the ability to distribute a file or application to millions of people with ZERO infrastructure cost.
What’s the biggest issue with relays and making a global network with #Nostr? Monetization. Even right now the costs of having a popular relay are very significant. This means that the network can’t “passively” exist at scale, and it’s a huge centralization pressure because nobody will donate $5,000 per month to keep relays running just to help the network.
In the Holepunch alternative, this cost is essentially nonexistent. Every individual feed will act like a live torrent and you simply download from all of the other followers, and they can selectively store old content as they wish and it’s automatically available from those who do.
The more people who join/follow/chat/etc, the faster and more responsive and less costly all of it becomes. Whereas in the relay model, the bigger it gets the more expensive it is and the worse the experience is without aggressive scaling, which means they need money.
In short, the client/server model is a major reason why the internet centralized around platforms. The Holepunch protocol fixes the client/server barrier.
Hmm, that sounds good. But maybe when it's open sourced it'll gain traction on nostr protocols and they can be integrated. But also, couldn't a nostr client replicate this by having a relay in the client?
Holepunch is already FOSS, keet isn't yet. Holepunch is built with DHT (P2P), Nostr is built with relays and clients (decentralized client/server)