directly related to something else I said today: nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqth65u2mhdrd6klxkldg6acqyek3ze6tjyacz79dmdwzuc7esue3qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcqyrcwc9t6m4xd9et74ss2ee0rsrvn2ffd7vvr3rcedz73rjscrgacxwm7gqm

server and bandwidth burden shouldn't all be on one entity. here we are swimming in nearly decentralized waters yet there are these glaring centralization points whose tradeoffs mean "sometimes one service farts and an entire user experience disappears for a while". I refuse to accept that long-term.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

The cost in a radically decentralized setup like this will be much higher than what a centralized entity can provide today.

That is always the case with decentralized systems. They are slower and more costly than centralized ones, but more robust.

the global cost is also spread across millions of entities. no single party has to provide and maintain service to "everyone else". the gain in robustness is exactly proportional to the distribution of cost.

that's not even discounting the enormous costs (from technical to privacy to 'spiritual') to the end users that come smuggled along with the "savings" a centralized entity offers