6 ms·

So the "news" here is they're hosting their own PDS? I think that was the main point of Atmosphere and Bluesky was just a popular gateway to get people into it

by goody71 3mo ago

So the "news" here is they're hosting their own PDS? I think that was the main point of Atmosphere and Bluesky was just a popular gateway to get people into it. Unless I'm missing something else...

skybrian 3mo ago
That's the plan, but to get to actual decentralization, one of the steps is for more people to actually move their PDS's somewhere other than Bluesky. (They are not self-hosting; Eurosky is doing it.)
- dotcoma 3mo ago
  But... if Waag are not self-hosting, and they're not, how likely is it that normal people will start doing so in relatively large numbers?
  - skybrian 3mo ago
    I don't think that's the goal? If we got to the point where no service hosts the majority of accounts, that would be a pretty good milestone.
    - dotcoma 3mo ago
      That would indeed be a huge improvement over the current situation, with 98.5% of repos hosted directly by bsky (!) https://atproto.barn.city/ https://atproto.barn.city/
  - steveklabnik 3mo ago
    An important part of how this works is that you don't have to make that choice right away. I've been meaning to move to my own PDS for a few months now. Still haven't. Whenever I decide to get around to it, it'll be fine.
- kevinak 3mo ago
  You won’t have decentralisation on Atproto because the protocol itself incentivises centralisation.
  - tancop 3mo ago
    the only true centralized part is the did:plc registry and thats designed to be fully auditable. all canonical data is stored on your pds so if you self host that you get full control. decentralization is not about the number of app instances but how easy it is to switch from one to another. on that metric bluesky is already better than fediverse.
    - kevinak 3mo ago
      That’s a very narrow definition of decentralisation. In any case - both atproto and fediverse are massively centralised compared to something like Nostr, and it’s not even close. The fact that the PDS in practice owns your identity in the vast vast majority of cases is such a dumb trade off that it’s honestly laughable. Should Bluesky decide to splinter off of the network there would be like 50000 people left. Stop telling people that it’s decentralised in any meaningful way and be honest about it instead. That’s the issue. The dishonesty and tricking users.
      - AlienRobot 3mo ago
        There are two kinds of people. 1. People who have no idea what decentralized is. 2. People who would try to figure exactly how decentralized something is. If you are the latter, you would instantly question the data model of Bluesky and of Mastodon as well. If you are the former then that just sounds like a buzzword.
      - steveklabnik 3mo ago
        > The fact that the PDS in practice owns your identity This is incorrect. 1. a PDS stores data, it does not own the identity. 2. Your identity is controlled by a DID, of which most users use DID:PLC. 3. This means the PLC directory controls who owns the identity. 4. Users can upload their own keys into the directory to ensure they have control. 5. At this point, the threat vector is "PLC directory lies", which is why there are transparency logs and independent mirrors.

by goody71 3mo ago

So the "news" here is they're hosting their own PDS? I think that was the main point of Atmosphere and Bluesky was just a popular gateway to get people into it. Unless I'm missing something else...

skybrian 3mo ago

That's the plan, but to get to actual decentralization, one of the steps is for more people to actually move their PDS's somewhere other than Bluesky. (They are not self-hosting; Eurosky is doing it.)

dotcoma 3mo ago
But... if Waag are not self-hosting, and they're not, how likely is it that normal people will start doing so in relatively large numbers?
- skybrian 3mo ago
  I don't think that's the goal? If we got to the point where no service hosts the majority of accounts, that would be a pretty good milestone.
  - dotcoma 3mo ago
    That would indeed be a huge improvement over the current situation, with 98.5% of repos hosted directly by bsky (!) https://atproto.barn.city/ https://atproto.barn.city/
- steveklabnik 3mo ago
  An important part of how this works is that you don't have to make that choice right away. I've been meaning to move to my own PDS for a few months now. Still haven't. Whenever I decide to get around to it, it'll be fine.
kevinak 3mo ago
You won’t have decentralisation on Atproto because the protocol itself incentivises centralisation.
- tancop 3mo ago
  the only true centralized part is the did:plc registry and thats designed to be fully auditable. all canonical data is stored on your pds so if you self host that you get full control. decentralization is not about the number of app instances but how easy it is to switch from one to another. on that metric bluesky is already better than fediverse.
  - kevinak 3mo ago
    That’s a very narrow definition of decentralisation. In any case - both atproto and fediverse are massively centralised compared to something like Nostr, and it’s not even close. The fact that the PDS in practice owns your identity in the vast vast majority of cases is such a dumb trade off that it’s honestly laughable. Should Bluesky decide to splinter off of the network there would be like 50000 people left. Stop telling people that it’s decentralised in any meaningful way and be honest about it instead. That’s the issue. The dishonesty and tricking users.
    - AlienRobot 3mo ago
      There are two kinds of people. 1. People who have no idea what decentralized is. 2. People who would try to figure exactly how decentralized something is. If you are the latter, you would instantly question the data model of Bluesky and of Mastodon as well. If you are the former then that just sounds like a buzzword.
    - steveklabnik 3mo ago
      > The fact that the PDS in practice owns your identity This is incorrect. 1. a PDS stores data, it does not own the identity. 2. Your identity is controlled by a DID, of which most users use DID:PLC. 3. This means the PLC directory controls who owns the identity. 4. Users can upload their own keys into the directory to ensure they have control. 5. At this point, the threat vector is "PLC directory lies", which is why there are transparency logs and independent mirrors.