I'll do a big brain post and say, in my opinion, blockchains aren't even that decentralized. They're just distributed. You have a single global state and you need consensus in the network to modify it. Mastodon servers have a lot more independence than that 'cause they don't care what else happens in the network.
@Gargron that consensus _is the point_.
Mastodon uses consensus, in the form of DNS.
I am kindah against blockchains as they are, though. Like mainly, it might help to be able to send money and do DNS without interference. But the idea of undermining the government or whatever is daft.
These Blockchains currently can also not replace systems, they're not tied closely enough to community. They tend closer to business, reiterating current problems, possibly with little restraint.
@jasper I wouldn't call DNS consensus. You don't need anyone's consensus for activity on your own server. At best, consensus of DNS caches is used to verify incoming/outgoing activities, but that's also directly from one server to another, without requiring whole network approval.
@Gargron the authority determines what the names mean. I.e. consensus is reached by agreeing to follow those authorities.
I am pretty sure that mastodon depends on DNS.
Existing instances already convinced of each' others names could use public key crypto and just stick with the names, but new names are harder to decide..
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!