About Bluesky and federation: Edit: There might be some mistakes, and my information could be outdated, but the point still stands - Bluesky wasn't built on 100% federation from the start.
-
About Bluesky and federation:
Edit: There might be some mistakes, and my information could be outdated, but the point still stands - Bluesky wasn't built on 100% federation from the start.I've been wondering about Bluesky's decentralization again. I can't think of any reason why I'd want to self-host Bluesky in its current form. I cannot 100% self host "my own Bluesky".
Their main selling points for building their own protocol were easier migration and better discoverability, but right now there's no simple way to migrate my Bluesky account to my own instance. And hosting the centralized parts yourself isn't really possible, or if it were, not affordable, they haven't made that feasible, by design, it seems.
Even if you self-host a PDS, Bluesky's Relay only indexes up to 10 accounts from it. You can run more, but they won't federate, the central infrastructure decides what gets seen. They control this (source: https://docs.bsky.app/blog/self-host-federation#:~:text=For%20a%20smooth%20transition%20into,for%20everyone%20in%20the%20ecosystem.). You can self-host a PDS (Personal Data Server), but you still depend on Bluesky's centralized Relay and AppView. There's no production-ready alternative infrastructure from what I gather.
It feels like I'd be renting a room in a hotel that someone else is running anyway, when I want my own hotel.
If Mastodon gGmbH vanishes tomorrow, my instance keeps running and federating with everyone else. If Bluesky PBC vanishes, the ecosystem would need to scramble to stand up replacement infrastructure that doesn't really exist yet.
ATProto keeps getting evaluated on its promises while other systems get evaluated on their merits. The "portability" selling point depends on infrastructure that isn't mature enough to actually catch you if Bluesky falls.
I trust W3C, the builders and fathers of the World Wide Web, ActivityPub and the Fediverse.
#Decentralization #SelfHosting #SelfHosted #Mastodon #Fediverse #Bluesky #Servers
I have too many corrections on this one.
Pds a year ago when i got to 100 accounts I had to get in contact with someone on the team, now is higherThe relay and app view: have you seen appviewlite? Its quite light
Regarding production ready alternatives: blacksky. Seriously. Blacksky
The idea is different. Fedi is trains and bsky are trucks. Knowing about one doesn’t means you know the other. The architecture is too different.
And a lot of the times the question is “wait you dont get railed i mean use rails?”
If bsky llc vanished tomorrow it would be fine. Seriously
Its a bit late here but if you want we can keep this conversation later in a better medium than this one, this one will make both of us look like confrontational pricks
-
I have too many corrections on this one.
Pds a year ago when i got to 100 accounts I had to get in contact with someone on the team, now is higherThe relay and app view: have you seen appviewlite? Its quite light
Regarding production ready alternatives: blacksky. Seriously. Blacksky
The idea is different. Fedi is trains and bsky are trucks. Knowing about one doesn’t means you know the other. The architecture is too different.
And a lot of the times the question is “wait you dont get railed i mean use rails?”
If bsky llc vanished tomorrow it would be fine. Seriously
Its a bit late here but if you want we can keep this conversation later in a better medium than this one, this one will make both of us look like confrontational pricks
@gabboman I for 1 would love to hear more. I understand that you can keep custody of your own key, but I still don't get it what is the vision for self hosting, bootstrap, and the "scaling down"...
-
-
About Bluesky and federation:
Edit: There might be some mistakes, and my information could be outdated, but the point still stands - Bluesky wasn't built on 100% federation from the start.I've been wondering about Bluesky's decentralization again. I can't think of any reason why I'd want to self-host Bluesky in its current form. I cannot 100% self host "my own Bluesky".
Their main selling points for building their own protocol were easier migration and better discoverability, but right now there's no simple way to migrate my Bluesky account to my own instance. And hosting the centralized parts yourself isn't really possible, or if it were, not affordable, they haven't made that feasible, by design, it seems.
Even if you self-host a PDS, Bluesky's Relay only indexes up to 10 accounts from it. You can run more, but they won't federate, the central infrastructure decides what gets seen. They control this (source: https://docs.bsky.app/blog/self-host-federation#:~:text=For%20a%20smooth%20transition%20into,for%20everyone%20in%20the%20ecosystem.). You can self-host a PDS (Personal Data Server), but you still depend on Bluesky's centralized Relay and AppView. There's no production-ready alternative infrastructure from what I gather.
It feels like I'd be renting a room in a hotel that someone else is running anyway, when I want my own hotel.
If Mastodon gGmbH vanishes tomorrow, my instance keeps running and federating with everyone else. If Bluesky PBC vanishes, the ecosystem would need to scramble to stand up replacement infrastructure that doesn't really exist yet.
ATProto keeps getting evaluated on its promises while other systems get evaluated on their merits. The "portability" selling point depends on infrastructure that isn't mature enough to actually catch you if Bluesky falls.
I trust W3C, the builders and fathers of the World Wide Web, ActivityPub and the Fediverse.
#Decentralization #SelfHosting #SelfHosted #Mastodon #Fediverse #Bluesky #Servers
Bluesky is not to be trusted. It is just Twitter, but delayed.
#Decentralization #SelfHosting #SelfHosted #Mastodon #Fediverse #Bluesky #Servers -
About Bluesky and federation:
Edit: There might be some mistakes, and my information could be outdated, but the point still stands - Bluesky wasn't built on 100% federation from the start.I've been wondering about Bluesky's decentralization again. I can't think of any reason why I'd want to self-host Bluesky in its current form. I cannot 100% self host "my own Bluesky".
Their main selling points for building their own protocol were easier migration and better discoverability, but right now there's no simple way to migrate my Bluesky account to my own instance. And hosting the centralized parts yourself isn't really possible, or if it were, not affordable, they haven't made that feasible, by design, it seems.
Even if you self-host a PDS, Bluesky's Relay only indexes up to 10 accounts from it. You can run more, but they won't federate, the central infrastructure decides what gets seen. They control this (source: https://docs.bsky.app/blog/self-host-federation#:~:text=For%20a%20smooth%20transition%20into,for%20everyone%20in%20the%20ecosystem.). You can self-host a PDS (Personal Data Server), but you still depend on Bluesky's centralized Relay and AppView. There's no production-ready alternative infrastructure from what I gather.
It feels like I'd be renting a room in a hotel that someone else is running anyway, when I want my own hotel.
If Mastodon gGmbH vanishes tomorrow, my instance keeps running and federating with everyone else. If Bluesky PBC vanishes, the ecosystem would need to scramble to stand up replacement infrastructure that doesn't really exist yet.
ATProto keeps getting evaluated on its promises while other systems get evaluated on their merits. The "portability" selling point depends on infrastructure that isn't mature enough to actually catch you if Bluesky falls.
I trust W3C, the builders and fathers of the World Wide Web, ActivityPub and the Fediverse.
#Decentralization #SelfHosting #SelfHosted #Mastodon #Fediverse #Bluesky #Servers
Well, I recently discovered that Bluesky got one step closer to decentralization:
It is now possible to set up DIDs without depending on Bluesky's services. If you look into the AT spec, you will find that there are now two types of DIDs that can be used for Bluesky: did:plc (which can only be issued by Bluesky) and did:web which essentially consist of a domain name. So an AT user of johndoe.example.com could have a DID of did:web:johndoe.example.com.But now there are at
-
Well, I recently discovered that Bluesky got one step closer to decentralization:
It is now possible to set up DIDs without depending on Bluesky's services. If you look into the AT spec, you will find that there are now two types of DIDs that can be used for Bluesky: did:plc (which can only be issued by Bluesky) and did:web which essentially consist of a domain name. So an AT user of johndoe.example.com could have a DID of did:web:johndoe.example.com.But now there are at
least 3 parts that remain to be done:
• Alternative instances need own Relay and AppView -> should be feasable
• Alternative instances need their own servers for private messages -> This is still a problem. How are you supposed to chat with someone if another instance can't find your chat server?
• Bluesky still needs to adopt IPv6 -> This is also a problem. IPv4 is slowly heading for its end, and I wouldn't want to rely on IPv4 for Bluesky federation. -
least 3 parts that remain to be done:
• Alternative instances need own Relay and AppView -> should be feasable
• Alternative instances need their own servers for private messages -> This is still a problem. How are you supposed to chat with someone if another instance can't find your chat server?
• Bluesky still needs to adopt IPv6 -> This is also a problem. IPv4 is slowly heading for its end, and I wouldn't want to rely on IPv4 for Bluesky federation.popped up recently is that Bluesky allowed ICE (Terrorist Organization) to open an account on their platform which might be a good reason for deferating them.
With those 3 issues (ICE, IPv4 and centralized Chat), I think I wouldn't want to federate with Bluesky anymore.
Oh, and btw, my Mastodon account which is bridged to Bluesky, recently was banned by Bluesky. I have no clue why this happened because Bluesky won't tell me.
-
About Bluesky and federation:
Edit: There might be some mistakes, and my information could be outdated, but the point still stands - Bluesky wasn't built on 100% federation from the start.I've been wondering about Bluesky's decentralization again. I can't think of any reason why I'd want to self-host Bluesky in its current form. I cannot 100% self host "my own Bluesky".
Their main selling points for building their own protocol were easier migration and better discoverability, but right now there's no simple way to migrate my Bluesky account to my own instance. And hosting the centralized parts yourself isn't really possible, or if it were, not affordable, they haven't made that feasible, by design, it seems.
Even if you self-host a PDS, Bluesky's Relay only indexes up to 10 accounts from it. You can run more, but they won't federate, the central infrastructure decides what gets seen. They control this (source: https://docs.bsky.app/blog/self-host-federation#:~:text=For%20a%20smooth%20transition%20into,for%20everyone%20in%20the%20ecosystem.). You can self-host a PDS (Personal Data Server), but you still depend on Bluesky's centralized Relay and AppView. There's no production-ready alternative infrastructure from what I gather.
It feels like I'd be renting a room in a hotel that someone else is running anyway, when I want my own hotel.
If Mastodon gGmbH vanishes tomorrow, my instance keeps running and federating with everyone else. If Bluesky PBC vanishes, the ecosystem would need to scramble to stand up replacement infrastructure that doesn't really exist yet.
ATProto keeps getting evaluated on its promises while other systems get evaluated on their merits. The "portability" selling point depends on infrastructure that isn't mature enough to actually catch you if Bluesky falls.
I trust W3C, the builders and fathers of the World Wide Web, ActivityPub and the Fediverse.
#Decentralization #SelfHosting #SelfHosted #Mastodon #Fediverse #Bluesky #Servers
Please let your words get to @mmasnick ’s ears. A person that I admire, and have probably been banned by, for harping this point. As a non-sycophant, I just see him addicted to the numbers game, just like I saw others fall, when Twitter fell. It’s an addiction, and it demands an intervention. Individual, intelligent human minds can break the dopamine abuse cycle, with our help.
Follower count is not the dragon you need to be chasing, friends. Bluesky is owned, and it will take you down, as low as its billionaires and advertisers can gaslight you.
Only you can make the choice to stop.
Follower count is a drug. The algorithm that makes you think your influence is measured in a number, is the dopamine rush. It is designed so that you will defend it, argue for it, and never want to let it go.
It is gross, and it is making your teeth rot, when those of us who like you, see you.
Sorry to be so dramatic, but this is the current state of things, in analogy.
️ -
About Bluesky and federation:
Edit: There might be some mistakes, and my information could be outdated, but the point still stands - Bluesky wasn't built on 100% federation from the start.I've been wondering about Bluesky's decentralization again. I can't think of any reason why I'd want to self-host Bluesky in its current form. I cannot 100% self host "my own Bluesky".
Their main selling points for building their own protocol were easier migration and better discoverability, but right now there's no simple way to migrate my Bluesky account to my own instance. And hosting the centralized parts yourself isn't really possible, or if it were, not affordable, they haven't made that feasible, by design, it seems.
Even if you self-host a PDS, Bluesky's Relay only indexes up to 10 accounts from it. You can run more, but they won't federate, the central infrastructure decides what gets seen. They control this (source: https://docs.bsky.app/blog/self-host-federation#:~:text=For%20a%20smooth%20transition%20into,for%20everyone%20in%20the%20ecosystem.). You can self-host a PDS (Personal Data Server), but you still depend on Bluesky's centralized Relay and AppView. There's no production-ready alternative infrastructure from what I gather.
It feels like I'd be renting a room in a hotel that someone else is running anyway, when I want my own hotel.
If Mastodon gGmbH vanishes tomorrow, my instance keeps running and federating with everyone else. If Bluesky PBC vanishes, the ecosystem would need to scramble to stand up replacement infrastructure that doesn't really exist yet.
ATProto keeps getting evaluated on its promises while other systems get evaluated on their merits. The "portability" selling point depends on infrastructure that isn't mature enough to actually catch you if Bluesky falls.
I trust W3C, the builders and fathers of the World Wide Web, ActivityPub and the Fediverse.
#Decentralization #SelfHosting #SelfHosted #Mastodon #Fediverse #Bluesky #Servers
-
About Bluesky and federation:
Edit: There might be some mistakes, and my information could be outdated, but the point still stands - Bluesky wasn't built on 100% federation from the start.I've been wondering about Bluesky's decentralization again. I can't think of any reason why I'd want to self-host Bluesky in its current form. I cannot 100% self host "my own Bluesky".
Their main selling points for building their own protocol were easier migration and better discoverability, but right now there's no simple way to migrate my Bluesky account to my own instance. And hosting the centralized parts yourself isn't really possible, or if it were, not affordable, they haven't made that feasible, by design, it seems.
Even if you self-host a PDS, Bluesky's Relay only indexes up to 10 accounts from it. You can run more, but they won't federate, the central infrastructure decides what gets seen. They control this (source: https://docs.bsky.app/blog/self-host-federation#:~:text=For%20a%20smooth%20transition%20into,for%20everyone%20in%20the%20ecosystem.). You can self-host a PDS (Personal Data Server), but you still depend on Bluesky's centralized Relay and AppView. There's no production-ready alternative infrastructure from what I gather.
It feels like I'd be renting a room in a hotel that someone else is running anyway, when I want my own hotel.
If Mastodon gGmbH vanishes tomorrow, my instance keeps running and federating with everyone else. If Bluesky PBC vanishes, the ecosystem would need to scramble to stand up replacement infrastructure that doesn't really exist yet.
ATProto keeps getting evaluated on its promises while other systems get evaluated on their merits. The "portability" selling point depends on infrastructure that isn't mature enough to actually catch you if Bluesky falls.
I trust W3C, the builders and fathers of the World Wide Web, ActivityPub and the Fediverse.
#Decentralization #SelfHosting #SelfHosted #Mastodon #Fediverse #Bluesky #Servers
@rolle atproto is quite literally a scam built on gaslighting with false promises ^^^^
-
About Bluesky and federation:
Edit: There might be some mistakes, and my information could be outdated, but the point still stands - Bluesky wasn't built on 100% federation from the start.I've been wondering about Bluesky's decentralization again. I can't think of any reason why I'd want to self-host Bluesky in its current form. I cannot 100% self host "my own Bluesky".
Their main selling points for building their own protocol were easier migration and better discoverability, but right now there's no simple way to migrate my Bluesky account to my own instance. And hosting the centralized parts yourself isn't really possible, or if it were, not affordable, they haven't made that feasible, by design, it seems.
Even if you self-host a PDS, Bluesky's Relay only indexes up to 10 accounts from it. You can run more, but they won't federate, the central infrastructure decides what gets seen. They control this (source: https://docs.bsky.app/blog/self-host-federation#:~:text=For%20a%20smooth%20transition%20into,for%20everyone%20in%20the%20ecosystem.). You can self-host a PDS (Personal Data Server), but you still depend on Bluesky's centralized Relay and AppView. There's no production-ready alternative infrastructure from what I gather.
It feels like I'd be renting a room in a hotel that someone else is running anyway, when I want my own hotel.
If Mastodon gGmbH vanishes tomorrow, my instance keeps running and federating with everyone else. If Bluesky PBC vanishes, the ecosystem would need to scramble to stand up replacement infrastructure that doesn't really exist yet.
ATProto keeps getting evaluated on its promises while other systems get evaluated on their merits. The "portability" selling point depends on infrastructure that isn't mature enough to actually catch you if Bluesky falls.
I trust W3C, the builders and fathers of the World Wide Web, ActivityPub and the Fediverse.
#Decentralization #SelfHosting #SelfHosted #Mastodon #Fediverse #Bluesky #Servers
The problem with self hosting and mastodon is that only a handful of tech people actually care to host their own. Hosting an instance starts to cost serious money if you have a lot of users.
I think the best solution would be a torrent based solution that can run entirely in a browser. I've started working on such a client, but development is stale right now for resources, time and knowledge.
I've successfully synced profiles from LAN to a mobile on cellular network, so the concept should work.
If anyone wants to take a look, fork or join, let me know:
-
The problem with self hosting and mastodon is that only a handful of tech people actually care to host their own. Hosting an instance starts to cost serious money if you have a lot of users.
I think the best solution would be a torrent based solution that can run entirely in a browser. I've started working on such a client, but development is stale right now for resources, time and knowledge.
I've successfully synced profiles from LAN to a mobile on cellular network, so the concept should work.
If anyone wants to take a look, fork or join, let me know:
@Lach "Only a handful"? As far as I know, there are tens of thousands of instances in the Fediverse. You can host your own server on the Fediverse with a Raspberry Pi if you want, or you can start a WordPress blog anywhere and use that. Or you can start using Ghost or Writefreely without any technical knowledge. The same definitely doesn't apply to Bluesky.
-
@Lach "Only a handful"? As far as I know, there are tens of thousands of instances in the Fediverse. You can host your own server on the Fediverse with a Raspberry Pi if you want, or you can start a WordPress blog anywhere and use that. Or you can start using Ghost or Writefreely without any technical knowledge. The same definitely doesn't apply to Bluesky.
Not everyone can host their own. Most of my friends and family can't. If you host an instance and get two thousand users, it won't be free to host. Ten thousands instances is a handful in this matter. And if you host your own instance and have a million followers?
Torrents can scale for all of this. It will also be impossible to block. No central servers to attack. No central storage of data.
-
Not everyone can host their own. Most of my friends and family can't. If you host an instance and get two thousand users, it won't be free to host. Ten thousands instances is a handful in this matter. And if you host your own instance and have a million followers?
Torrents can scale for all of this. It will also be impossible to block. No central servers to attack. No central storage of data.
@Lach Yeah, P2P works to some extent. The Nostr blockchain concept is also quite interesting. But in my opinion, the Fediverse thrives because we share resources to a certain degree. Not every post is hosted by every instance.
-
Bluesky was able to ban Blacksky's users directly on Blacksky, it seems there's still a centralised kill switch in Bluesky's control:
https://plus.flux.community/p/banning-controversy-reveals-blueskys
Bluesky banned the user from their appview, the user still exists on alternative ones. https://reddwarf.app/profile/spacelawshitpost.me
https://staging.blacksky.community/profile/spacelawshitpost.me
-
V viennawriter@literatur.social shared this topic
