None of these technologies will disrupt big tech. They're niche things that, while awesome, appeal to techies and people being censored. To stop conglomeration of big tech, you need big tech businesses that refuse to or are not allowed to merge with Google, Facebook, etc. Legislation around this is interesting because these are not technically anti competitive monopolies, and you don't want to overly restrict the market by accident.
This is a neat summary of decentralized tech, but the opening paragraph is a red herring.
Back in the early 'oughts, the advent of peer-to-peer filesharing systems inspired a number of projects and companies to be founded with the goal of applying P2P technologies to more general applications.
At the time, P2P architecture offered 2 primary advantages:
1. Since the infrastructure of a P2P system was provided by its users, it would be self-hosting and self-scaling.
2. Having no central point of control, P2P systems are difficult for law enforcement to censor or shut down.
Unfortunately, it turned out that P2P had one big downside, which was complexity of implementation. In theory everything would smoothly scale to millions of users, but it required some serious expertise and investment to achieve that in practice. As hosting prices dropped and AdWords was launched, the conventional client-server website approach reasserted itself as the most sensible way to build networked applications.
Thus, P2P's only remaining reason to exist was for the evasion of the authorities. And even this had its caveats- law enforcement may not be able to shut down a decentralized system, but it certainly can shut down the company(s) that pay for the system's ongoing development and maintenance.
While decentralized technologies still have a lot going against them, I think the thing that has changed this time around is the presence of cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies offer the possibility to fund the development of decentralized software using micropayments, but considering the amount of work required to design the architecture of such software before even being able to think about usability concerns, I am skeptical as to whether micropayments or even ICOs will result in the investment necessary to make decentralized systems appealing to the general public.
The biggest advantage of a truly decentralized system is the lack of corporate control. Take the lowly todo app. If as a regular person you want to keep a todo list and share it with others in editable form, you need to get in bed with a corporate taskmaster. There’s no technological reason why that needs to be the case.
> Cryptocurrencies offer the possibility to fund the development of decentralized software using micropayment [while plausibly avoiding law enforcement sanctions]
Just spelled out the specific conditions where crypto currencies are relevant as opposed to any of the other existing crowd funding platforms.
> None of these technologies will disrupt big tech.
Famous last words.
Seriously though, this is the kind of thing people said about PCs, Microsoft, Linux, the iPhone, etc. (And today, about machine learning, blockchains, and VR.)
It's nearly impossible to tell what will disrupt the world, but typically it's the kinds of things that bring back the balance of power. All of these things are enablers, and allow your 3-person startup to innovate in spaces with huge powerful competitors.
True, but also a safe statement. Most high-risk revolutions / startups / ventures fail. It is vanishingly unlikely that any of these projects will see widespread adoption and success. So you can just say “that will never work” to everything and be right most of the time.
Of course, VCs make their money by occasionally finding the one that breaks the mold. Picking winners is hard.
But that's beside the point. You can't make the argument that "most will fail" and conclude that "this category of tech will never bring success to any company". Fallacious nonsense if I ever heard it.
I agree in a sense, but it depends on whether we're talking about disrupting the current incumbants or about disrupting the mechanisms of centralisation itself.
Microsoft's PC has disrupted IBM and created a new "monopoly". Same with the web and mobile platforms, which are now dominated by a handful of oligopolists that appear stronger than everything seen before.
I think incumbants can always be disrupted, but can they be replaced with something structurally less prone to centralised control or are we just headed for the next cycle of disruption and re-centralisation of power?
This is an oft repeated fallacy by blockchain enthusiasts. Skeptical predictions from the past that turned out to be incorrect in hindsight has absolutely zero relevance to the viability of blockchain technology.
It's not "fair" as far as logical argumentation is concerned because the statement proves nothing since it is equally true of successful technologies as it is of failed technologies. It is an absolutely meaningless platitude.
Dat doesn't match that description. It has funding from a few different orgs with respectable endowments and is focused on solving real problems for non-tech people trying to share data.
Beaker is interesting because it's enabling things that aren't possible on the HTTP web, and (again) focusing on making it stupid easy for non-tech people do things. Meanwhile, the major browser vendors' idea of forward motion amounts to working on things that web developers can use to impress other web developers and maintaining existing barriers to entry.
Checked out Dat and Beaker, and I'm in love already - it's great to see people appreciating the terrible costs of the blockchain, and figuring out how to get distributed trust without it.
Keybase is a good example of the centralized “secure ledger” described in the article you linked:
> Keybase's approach to server security: (1) each user has his or her own signature chain that grows monotonically with each announcement; (2) the server maintains a global Merkle Tree that covers all signature chains; and (3) the server signs and publishes the root of the Merkle Tree with every new user signature. This configuration strongly discourages the server from lying by omission, since clients have the tools to catch the server in the act.
I agree that most of these technologies won't disrupt big tech, but completely disagree on why.
"Big co's" most ALWAYS fall because of another innovative startup/technology because of innovator's dilemma.
That said, most of these technologies IMO won't succeed NOT because they're niche (You HAVE to be niche in order to succeed, that's how all innovative technologies succeed. On the other hand, all new startups that try to play the same game as the bigcos in the large field ALWAYS fail) but because they got the priority wrong.
Most of these pursue decentralization for the sake of decentralization, as in a philosophical sense. But most people don't care about some esoteric philosophy. If they did, Facebook wouldn't be this dominant.
What they should be doing instead is coming up with a clear use case that fills an actual need (not some philosophical appetite). A few of these technologies may have this trait so I tend to think in more optimistic way.
>What they should be doing instead is coming up with a clear use case that fills an actual need (not some philosophical appetite). A few of these technologies may have this trait so I tend to think in more optimistic way.
I agree. We need to come up with at one strong need that average net users have that is being poorly served by the present centralized system.
I think we are not there yet because the techies are still developing systems that work and are easy to use. Once we have that, then people who are more marketing-oriented will figure out what needs to appeal to and what particular technology would do it best.
I think you’re correct about the average user not caring about philosophy - but I think there is now a great opportunity for the big players to screw up what they have by giving in to the money grab we see with the repeal of net neutrality. If we get rotten Internet for the average consumer most of the time in most places, average users will start thinking about alternatives.
It would be vastly difficult for a mesh network to compete with centralized wired or wireless broadband. I think net neutrality is better solved by better market competition (right now only available in wireless space) or by revisiting the legislation once again.
Although for places with crappy centralized internet, mesh networks are cool.
I couldn’t disagree more. This is like saying a tsunami isn’t coming because “Look! The tide’s gone out completely! There’s not a drop of water in sight”
It’s not a case of if, it’s when. These various technologies will eventually find there way into the mainstream for the exact same reason that the Internet did, because ultimately it has a democratising effect that the vast majority crave, even if they don’t think it’s possible yet.
A lot of the new technologies only provide ideological benefits for most people. I don't think the concept of decentralization is in itself enough to cause mass adoption.
I love that there are strong proponents of this tech,though. It's nice to have alternatives in case centralized authorities go off the deep end.
Out of curiosity, what are some counter-examples of decentralized protocols, or at least open protocols, that have gained significant adoption in recent decades?
The only major one I can think of is BitTorrent. Bitcoin and Tor are still niche.
It's too bad there aren't more. It seems very difficult for anything as fundamental and important as HTTP or SMTP to gain traction when there's no incentive for large companies to adopt an open protocol. Are we stuck with walled gardens like iMessage/WhatsApp/Slack/Twitter/Facebook from now on?
Brave is truly an underdog to me. When it was first launched, I thought it would not last long - another competing browser? Why would a VC invest in it? Because of Brendan Eich (he is extremely bright but I did not see how one could market yet another browser focus on privacy)? I am surprised with the direction the project has taken since though.
It’s also a browser that allows its users, if they opt-in, to get a cut of the advertising revenue to view high quality, relevant ads that respect privacy.
Yeah this is actually quite an unique business direction. There is also a possibility to do computation (like mapreduce) via ads - something I have been thinking for a long time. I heard about mining bitcoin that well too as an attack...
I had a brief look at the websites this page links to, and some of them fail to mention what they're about.
Blockstack tells me their token sale has ended. But what the hell is blockstack and why should I care about its token sale? Matrix is an open network for secure communication? What does that even mean to regular joe?
i'm tentatively excited about what the internet might look like in 5-10 years. there's plenty to worry about -- surveillance, balkanization, censorship -- but also genuine cause for hope for something (or many things) new and better for the internet.
also, urbit is some truly mind-bending stuff. i've spent a couple of hours reading docs and watching scattered videos and think i only sort-of get it. it got me to finally read mcluhan, though!
I'm truly truly hoping that Secure Scuttlebutt or Patchwork or some incantation of SSB becomes our new browser for shopping, tweeting, search, news... I know it has a long way to go, but give it 5 years...
1) Ask yourself if these technologies are decentralized but also distributed
2) I've tried to have an open mind on urbit enough to watch some of Yarvin's talks, but I'm not convinced after reading pushcx's comments on it being a form of underhanded digital feudalism : https://lobste.rs/s/z5j1hq/urbit_2017#c_hcnnbm
3) This 'roundup' is written by an anonymous person - it's worth reading his/her about page to understand their biases: http://clutchofthedeadhand.com/about/
Today, the ICO ended with approximately $205.8 million raised, a figure that adds to the $52 million collected in a presale that included Sequoia Capital, Andreessen Horowitz and Union Square Ventures, among others.
We're also working on decentralized/P2P tech as well, currently storage+computation+ledgers+DAGs are covered pretty well in the article, but CRDTs are also a must for most projects: https://github.com/amark/gun . The article seemed to mix in some blockchain/cryptocurrency projects as well, but seemed out of place (for instance, if they were mentioning those projects, why not also Ethereum?).
This is a neat summary of decentralized tech, but the opening paragraph is a red herring.