About Bluesky and federation: Edit: There might be some mistakes, and my information could be outdated, but the point still stands - Bluesky wasn't built on 100% federation from the start.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Edit: There might be some mistakes, and my information could be outdated, but the point still stands - Bluesky wasn't built on 100% federation from the start.I've been wondering about Bluesky's decentralization again.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
@rolle Very well put. And in addition, the service itself, I think, has a serious risk of being endangered if the current American administration sees it as a threat. Also, they seem to soon run out of money. Lots of
-
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Edit: There might be some mistakes, and my information could be outdated, but the point still stands - Bluesky wasn't built on 100% federation from the start.I've been wondering about Bluesky's decentralization again.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 This neatly sums up why, every time a BS fan was talking about federation, I just didn't get it. Now I understand they were only pretending to talk about federation, or perhaps worse, talk about some twisted definition of 'federation'. That's why I simply didn't understand them. They were talking about something else entirely, while claiming "federation" at the same time.
Gaslighting by design?
-
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 Blacksky has its own AppView and a Bluesky-independent way of unlocking users who have been blocked by Bluesky, for example.
A person can host a PDS on a server of their choice, including their own, and connect to the service they prefer.https://bsky.app/profile/rude1.blacksky.team/post/3m4ra7cs75s2z
https://bsky.app/profile/rude1.blacksky.team/post/3mccvziodyc2v
https://bsky.app/profile/rude1.blacksky.team/post/3mcg5h5ef2k2z
I can also connect to At Proto via Blacksky
https://blacksky.community/profile/did:plc:w4xbfzo7kqfes5zb7r6qv3rw/post/3m4ra7cs75s2z
-
@rolle Blacksky has its own AppView and a Bluesky-independent way of unlocking users who have been blocked by Bluesky, for example.
A person can host a PDS on a server of their choice, including their own, and connect to the service they prefer.https://bsky.app/profile/rude1.blacksky.team/post/3m4ra7cs75s2z
https://bsky.app/profile/rude1.blacksky.team/post/3mccvziodyc2v
https://bsky.app/profile/rude1.blacksky.team/post/3mcg5h5ef2k2z
I can also connect to At Proto via Blacksky
https://blacksky.community/profile/did:plc:w4xbfzo7kqfes5zb7r6qv3rw/post/3m4ra7cs75s2z
RE: https://toot.cafe/@thereisnocat/115906352914274869
@zotheca So I've heard. But there are challenges.
https://mementomori.social/@thereisnocat@toot.cafe/115906353041503398
-
RE: https://toot.cafe/@thereisnocat/115906352914274869
@zotheca So I've heard. But there are challenges.
https://mementomori.social/@thereisnocat@toot.cafe/115906353041503398
@rolle Yes, I would say the biggest challenge is the amount of data that is transferred there, which makes it hardly suitable for a home server. A Hubzilla installation can be set up as PHP on the side. The system does not require every user to have their own relay at home.
The question is, at what number of offerings is decentralization achieved? Are Bluesky and Blacksky sufficient, or do we also need Eurosky and Northernsky, and so on? And is it necessary for decentralization that everyone can host at home...
Basically, the statement often made in the Fediverse that there is only one AppView and that Bluesky can therefore simply pull the plug is, in my view, incorrect and, for many people, more a matter of populism.
Currently, if I am not satisfied with Bluesky's moderation of applications, I can easily switch to Blacksky.
-
@rolle Very well put. And in addition, the service itself, I think, has a serious risk of being endangered if the current American administration sees it as a threat. Also, they seem to soon run out of money. Lots of
@doktorzjivago @rolle Let's hope they do run out of money...
-
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 Well, the problem is that vast majority of people don't care about this.
*But*, one lesson from the forkiverse should be, this is still a great selling point for community organizers. And they can bring over their people.
-
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
This is why I’m on the Fediverse, bridging with BlueSky. Because I’d be happy to federate with them, if they’d open up as standard.
But they don’t. They want to keep to themselves unless someone explicitly says they want to bridge to Fediverse.
That’s the reason I don’t really trust BlueSky.
Did you see the European PDS, EuroSky?
-
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
That's crazy. I wonder why they are trying so hard to look decentralized, when under the hood they really aren't.
If they truly cared about decentralization, they would have implemented the already existing ActivityPub it became a W3C recommended standard in 2018...
Something fishy about bluesky. Thanks for sharing, I didn't know about this!
-
@rolle Yes, I would say the biggest challenge is the amount of data that is transferred there, which makes it hardly suitable for a home server. A Hubzilla installation can be set up as PHP on the side. The system does not require every user to have their own relay at home.
The question is, at what number of offerings is decentralization achieved? Are Bluesky and Blacksky sufficient, or do we also need Eurosky and Northernsky, and so on? And is it necessary for decentralization that everyone can host at home...
Basically, the statement often made in the Fediverse that there is only one AppView and that Bluesky can therefore simply pull the plug is, in my view, incorrect and, for many people, more a matter of populism.
Currently, if I am not satisfied with Bluesky's moderation of applications, I can easily switch to Blacksky.
@zotheca It's not just populism when it comes to self-hosting and independence. The amount of data in the Fediverse is huge, yet you can still host everything from a USB stick if you want to (need S3 or NAS for storage, but anyway, it's simple).
I see Bluesky as false marketing in many ways. Decentralization, by definition, should mean as much as possible. We all know what happens when Cloudflare or AWS goes down - that's not decentralization if only a handful of large services exist. So I completely disagree with the idea that "a few is enough".
-
@rolle Blacksky has its own AppView and a Bluesky-independent way of unlocking users who have been blocked by Bluesky, for example.
A person can host a PDS on a server of their choice, including their own, and connect to the service they prefer.https://bsky.app/profile/rude1.blacksky.team/post/3m4ra7cs75s2z
https://bsky.app/profile/rude1.blacksky.team/post/3mccvziodyc2v
https://bsky.app/profile/rude1.blacksky.team/post/3mcg5h5ef2k2z
I can also connect to At Proto via Blacksky
https://blacksky.community/profile/did:plc:w4xbfzo7kqfes5zb7r6qv3rw/post/3m4ra7cs75s2z
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
-
That's crazy. I wonder why they are trying so hard to look decentralized, when under the hood they really aren't.
If they truly cared about decentralization, they would have implemented the already existing ActivityPub it became a W3C recommended standard in 2018...
Something fishy about bluesky. Thanks for sharing, I didn't know about this!
@smattymatty Their problem is they wanted their own from the begin with, to control. They claim that Fediverse and ActivityPub community have been "suspicious" towards them, but also "it’d have been a difficult collaboration if we chose to use AP, especially since we weren’t willing to compromise on some of the decisions". I see it they never even wanted to try.
https://github.com/bluesky-social/atproto/issues/255#issuecomment-1287953987
-
@zotheca It's not just populism when it comes to self-hosting and independence. The amount of data in the Fediverse is huge, yet you can still host everything from a USB stick if you want to (need S3 or NAS for storage, but anyway, it's simple).
I see Bluesky as false marketing in many ways. Decentralization, by definition, should mean as much as possible. We all know what happens when Cloudflare or AWS goes down - that's not decentralization if only a handful of large services exist. So I completely disagree with the idea that "a few is enough".
@rolle But what does decentralization mean? When I look at how many instances there are at Masto.Host or here in Germany at Hetzner or Hostinger (or a few others), it seems like pseudo-decentralization. All you need to do in Germany is block three server providers and the Fediverse will likely be dead here.
-
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
@homegrown You can't argue with outdated information. The event you are referring to dates back to a time when Blacksky did not yet have an own Application(AppView). It was not a secret switch. You can check the date of the developments.
-
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.
