Agreed, if you're really concerned about not being shut down, pure decentralized is the way to go.
But unless you are *absolutely devoted* to decentralization, for *every layer* -- authentication, bootstrapping, distribution of your binary, DNS, upgrades -- everything, there's virtually no value in avoiding centralization *everywhere* it's helpful. Basically, if you plan on having even one critical component -- and Leviant suggested he was going to use it for "crypt key enrollment and user authentication" -- then you might as well have as many central components as are helpful. Because once the feds come and shut down enrollment and key generation, they've dealt a fatal blow to your network, rendering all the fancy decentralization (which takes hundreds if not thousands more hours to build than a central server, and will *never, ever* be as good) a big waste of time and energy, and honestly, a disservice to your users. -david Serguei Osokine wrote: > On Friday, May 29, 2009 David Barrett wrote: >> The only practical benefit I can see to a "pure" decentralized design >> is protecting yourself from forced shutdown. But even that can be >> mitigated by having servers in different jurisdictions. > > Shutdown is not an only unreasonable request that one could imagine. > Craigslist had to endure all these sex ad removal requests from the > other state attorney. Microsoft Messenger had to selectively black > out Cuba, Iran, Sudan, etc. I fail to see how having some servers > in Europe or wherever would allow Microsoft to avoid doing that. As > a matter of fact, I fail to see how having such extra servers would > have protected Napster 1.0 from shutdown, either. > > Of course, you can design your system in such a way that the servers in > different jurisdictions would be operated by different legal entities. > But that is quite an endeavor - setting up multiple legal entities > across the globe is not for the weak of heart. If you as much as even > suspect that someone might dislike what you are doing, going fully > decentralized might be a pretty reasonable choice from the business > standpoint - it might prove to be a deterrent for the lawyers who have > nothing better to do. Plus, you don't have to pay the hosting costs > for the central servers in that case :-) > > Best wishes - > S.Osokine. > 30 May 2009. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: p2p-hackers-boun...@lists.zooko.com > [mailto:p2p-hackers-boun...@lists.zooko.com]on Behalf Of David Barrett > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 2:33 PM > To: theory and practice of decentralized computer networks > Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] Question on VoIP Kademlia based solution > > > leviant Leviant wrote: >> >> I do not want (at least yet) to implement any central component for such >> purposes. > > I guess I'd ask: why this design constraint? The only practical benefit > I can see to a "pure" decentralized design is protecting yourself from > forced shutdown. But even that can be mitigated by having servers in > different jurisdictions. > > Basically, if you're saying "I just want to build cool tech and that > sounds fun", that's a totally valid reason. But if you're trying to > build a scalable, secure, high-performance, real-world usable system, I > see no reason to avoid central components. > > -david > > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
