Decentralized No-Go
Decentralized architectures (in networking) have many flavors. It is a very broad term to describe anything from block-chain to information-centric networking and building automation too. Some aspect of the decentralized approach are working very well. From my own experience I can say the decentralized lighting control scheme proposed by Bluetooth mesh has been playing very well for us. As with every new architecture there were some new challenges, but they are all nicely solved now and the whole concept allows for building very efficient, no-point-of-failure lighting/sensing networks.
Within certain research circles there is a vibrant discussion on decentralized social networks. It revolves around the SSB - Secure Scuttlebutt protocol. The promise is huge: we don't need no Facebook. So you see how attractive this can be. Almost like Bitcoin was attractive to make banks obsolete (which never happened), SSB-based applications like Patchwork have been promising the Facebook-less future.
That will never happen.
Banks and Internet services are offering too much convenience for people to pass by. Bitcoin is used by nobody but criminals (only 16% of Bitcoin transactions are legitimate). The Patchwork community is zero (a rounding error) compared to Facebook.
The reason why banks and facebooks exist is convenience. They offer a worry-free management of money and personal relationships. You don't need to backup your bank. You don't need to backup your timeline in Facebook. They also offer what we have all been accustomed to in recent years: device independence. Replacing a phone? Grab a new one, use your login, voila: all your data is on the new one. That would not be possible in fully decentralized world: you would need to take care of your data files, taking a painful regime to back them up on a regular basis. And "you on the phone" would be a different you - from the "you on the PC computer". Such that when you still keep cash in a sugar bag at home, you could not have THE SAME cash under a floor in your summer cabin.
I do not think people are ready for the consequences of decentralized services for personal use. They want to trust some central entity instead. Be it a bank to manage money or be it Facebook to manage memories and relationships.
Within certain research circles there is a vibrant discussion on decentralized social networks. It revolves around the SSB - Secure Scuttlebutt protocol. The promise is huge: we don't need no Facebook. So you see how attractive this can be. Almost like Bitcoin was attractive to make banks obsolete (which never happened), SSB-based applications like Patchwork have been promising the Facebook-less future.
That will never happen.
Banks and Internet services are offering too much convenience for people to pass by. Bitcoin is used by nobody but criminals (only 16% of Bitcoin transactions are legitimate). The Patchwork community is zero (a rounding error) compared to Facebook.
The reason why banks and facebooks exist is convenience. They offer a worry-free management of money and personal relationships. You don't need to backup your bank. You don't need to backup your timeline in Facebook. They also offer what we have all been accustomed to in recent years: device independence. Replacing a phone? Grab a new one, use your login, voila: all your data is on the new one. That would not be possible in fully decentralized world: you would need to take care of your data files, taking a painful regime to back them up on a regular basis. And "you on the phone" would be a different you - from the "you on the PC computer". Such that when you still keep cash in a sugar bag at home, you could not have THE SAME cash under a floor in your summer cabin.
I do not think people are ready for the consequences of decentralized services for personal use. They want to trust some central entity instead. Be it a bank to manage money or be it Facebook to manage memories and relationships.
Comments
Post a Comment