mastodon.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Administered by:

Server stats:

380K
active users

Eugen Rochko

It's frustrating how cryptocurrency has poisoned all conversation about decentralization.

@Gargron and the meaning of "crypto" has totally shifted from "-graphy" to "-currencies"

@lightone @Gargron

for me, the meaning of "crypto" always remains "-graphy".

@Acer @lightone @Gargron For me "crypto" first means hidden as in people pretending to be what they're not.

@Gargron idk I guess it is annoying that decentralisation is now mainly associated with like, dim libertarians and people in the money fandom, but could still be made a positive -- if those people sign up en masse for decentralised services it does weaken centralised stuff, even if they're not really the first people you'd choose to have aboard your ship

@tomharris That's the thing though, they won't sign up unless there's a pump and dump scheme involved

@Gargron hmm you'll need to scam them with some kind of MastoCoin that secretly diverts all their money into a pet fediverse cause

@Gargron and the far right doing a much better job of take up than the progressive left.

Radical left media is beyond useless in its use of decentralised tech.

The stink is going to get stronger on this one.

@Gargron has it though? Care to share any examples?

@Gargron the inherent low barrier to entry and the oblique nature of it was too tempting for folks who saw a GRQ scheme, and turned all the discourse into a weird, hazy pabulum of equine dung and incoherent nonsense.

@Gargron Hey Eugen! As someone who is new and is just learning about decentralization. Can you elaborate on this?

@Gargron it seems to me that decentralization has less traction because it can protect against the extraction of value from public goods. If mlms can still operate with impunity, it must be that cryptocurrency is preferred because it's one more tool to manipulate and coerce individuals into supporting more extractive enterprises without any liability to the public. I could almost say the two ideas oppose each other, even though the two are supposed to compliment each other. My 2 cts tho✌️

@Gargron I tent to agree. For example, the common idea that a decentralized censorship-resistant social network would need to run on a blockchain is just stupid, and I say that as someone who really likes blockchain and cryptocurrency...

It's also funny to see how 100% of everything that involves a blockchain ends up being a literal cryptocurrency with some additional functionality awkwardly tucked on top. You know, those "decentralized social networks" where you pay to post and to like. Blockchain is truly an overhyped solution looking for problems.

@Gargron how has crypto-currency poisoned the conversation?

@davidpetersonharvey @Gargron Imagine telling someone today that e.g. "ssh took the existing usage patterns of rsh and rlogin, but added a layer of crypto for authentication and privacy".

A person in 2005 would have basically understood what ssh is from that description, but I bet you 100 Satoshi that a person from today would be just as likely to ask if that means the user information is on a distributed ledger.

@Gargron What's your point exactly? Cryptocurrency based messengers aren't good?

@Gargron there's really not much of anything decentralized about "math money"

@Gargron You have every right to feel salty here. We all saw the potential that the technology offered, and still does to an extent, but the follow-through from those who benefitted most has been lacking. I personally see De-cent/Centralization ideologies to be extremes who could both benefit from acknowledging the what necessitates the other's existence, and how best to co-exist without any form of dominion overlapping. Tall order, but not far fetched~

::)

@Gargron @hypolite what I mean is there isn't much decentralized about "money". Money is ALWAYS centrally controlled, without such, Price Discovery mechanisms (among else) collapse..... whether that central control is a more traditional institutional order, such as the BIS/Central Banking structure, or something more "nu age" such as "A.I." is of little significance to the ultimate end.

That anything but "chaotic"/"free running" structure(s) exist is arguably one of the largest benefits of the open ledger implementations. The centralization of control isn't even hidden and is open for all to see and actively observe. BitCoin had well openly bit the dust in these regards by 2013 when a single entity could be seen to yield 5%+ of the total volume control.
"Dark DAO" vulnerabilities and exploits, mass proliferation of chipset vulnerabilities that can work around encryption, the underlying natures of HFT and things like "spoofie", the list goes on, have only served to compound and solidify the existence of the "elephant in the room".

That there's not a single point failure node to bring it all to a stop, down, or render the faith of participants a non-sequitur (shy of something like a massive EMP); sure, it's arguably "decentralized" in such limited scope regard. However, such scope doesn't at all speak to the central control nature. Perhaps a more positive (if not also absurd) outlook, call IT GORT on the beat.