Mastodon Skip to content
  • Home
  • Aktuell
  • Tags
  • Über dieses Forum
Einklappen
Grafik mit zwei überlappenden Sprechblasen, eine grün und eine lila.
Abspeckgeflüster – Forum für Menschen mit Gewicht(ung)

Kostenlos. Werbefrei. Menschlich. Dein Abnehmforum.

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. About Bluesky and federation: Edit: There might be some mistakes, and my information could be outdated, but the point still stands - Bluesky wasn't built on 100% federation from the start.

About Bluesky and federation: Edit: There might be some mistakes, and my information could be outdated, but the point still stands - Bluesky wasn't built on 100% federation from the start.

Geplant Angeheftet Gesperrt Verschoben Uncategorized
decentralizationselfhostingselfhostedmastodonfediverseblueskyservers
32 Beiträge 20 Kommentatoren 0 Aufrufe
  • Älteste zuerst
  • Neuste zuerst
  • Meiste Stimmen
Antworten
  • In einem neuen Thema antworten
Anmelden zum Antworten
Dieses Thema wurde gelöscht. Nur Nutzer mit entsprechenden Rechten können es sehen.
  • zotheca@mementomori.socialZ zotheca@mementomori.social

    @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@mementomori.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
    rolle@mementomori.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
    rolle@mementomori.social
    schrieb zuletzt editiert von
    #13

    @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".

    zotheca@mementomori.socialZ 1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
    0
    • zotheca@mementomori.socialZ zotheca@mementomori.social

      @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

      homegrown@social.growyourown.servicesH This user is from outside of this forum
      homegrown@social.growyourown.servicesH This user is from outside of this forum
      homegrown@social.growyourown.services
      schrieb zuletzt editiert von
      #14

      @zotheca @rolle

      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

      zotheca@mementomori.socialZ ? 2 Antworten Letzte Antwort
      1
      0
      • smattymatty@socialontario.caS smattymatty@socialontario.ca

        @rolle

        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@mementomori.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
        rolle@mementomori.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
        rolle@mementomori.social
        schrieb zuletzt editiert von
        #15

        @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

        1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
        0
        • rolle@mementomori.socialR rolle@mementomori.social

          @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".

          zotheca@mementomori.socialZ This user is from outside of this forum
          zotheca@mementomori.socialZ This user is from outside of this forum
          zotheca@mementomori.social
          schrieb zuletzt editiert von
          #16

          @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.

          1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
          0
          • homegrown@social.growyourown.servicesH homegrown@social.growyourown.services

            @zotheca @rolle

            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

            zotheca@mementomori.socialZ This user is from outside of this forum
            zotheca@mementomori.socialZ This user is from outside of this forum
            zotheca@mementomori.social
            schrieb zuletzt editiert von
            #17

            @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.

            @rolle

            1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
            0
            • rolle@mementomori.socialR rolle@mementomori.social

              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

              gabboman@gabboman.xyzG This user is from outside of this forum
              gabboman@gabboman.xyzG This user is from outside of this forum
              gabboman@gabboman.xyz
              schrieb zuletzt editiert von
              #18

              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 higher

              The 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

              nobody@mastodon.acm.orgN 1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
              0
              • gabboman@gabboman.xyzG gabboman@gabboman.xyz

                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 higher

                The 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

                nobody@mastodon.acm.orgN This user is from outside of this forum
                nobody@mastodon.acm.orgN This user is from outside of this forum
                nobody@mastodon.acm.org
                schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                #19

                @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"...

                1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                0
                • zotheca@mementomori.socialZ This user is from outside of this forum
                  zotheca@mementomori.socialZ This user is from outside of this forum
                  zotheca@mementomori.social
                  schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                  #20

                  @irelephant

                  1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                  0
                  • rolle@mementomori.socialR rolle@mementomori.social

                    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

                    caiocgo@social.vivaldi.netC This user is from outside of this forum
                    caiocgo@social.vivaldi.netC This user is from outside of this forum
                    caiocgo@social.vivaldi.net
                    schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                    #21

                    @rolle

                    Bluesky is not to be trusted. It is just Twitter, but delayed.


                    #Decentralization #SelfHosting #SelfHosted #Mastodon #Fediverse #Bluesky #Servers

                    1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                    0
                    • rolle@mementomori.socialR rolle@mementomori.social

                      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

                      hallunke23@troet.cafeH This user is from outside of this forum
                      hallunke23@troet.cafeH This user is from outside of this forum
                      hallunke23@troet.cafe
                      schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                      #22

                      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

                      (1/3) @rolle #Bluesky

                      hallunke23@troet.cafeH 1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                      0
                      • hallunke23@troet.cafeH hallunke23@troet.cafe

                        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

                        (1/3) @rolle #Bluesky

                        hallunke23@troet.cafeH This user is from outside of this forum
                        hallunke23@troet.cafeH This user is from outside of this forum
                        hallunke23@troet.cafe
                        schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                        #23

                        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.

                        Another issue that
                        (2/3) @rolle #Bluesky

                        hallunke23@troet.cafeH 1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                        0
                        • hallunke23@troet.cafeH hallunke23@troet.cafe

                          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.

                          Another issue that
                          (2/3) @rolle #Bluesky

                          hallunke23@troet.cafeH This user is from outside of this forum
                          hallunke23@troet.cafeH This user is from outside of this forum
                          hallunke23@troet.cafe
                          schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                          #24

                          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.

                          (3/3) @rolle #Bluesky

                          1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                          0
                          • rolle@mementomori.socialR rolle@mementomori.social

                            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

                            putnamca@universeodon.comP This user is from outside of this forum
                            putnamca@universeodon.comP This user is from outside of this forum
                            putnamca@universeodon.com
                            schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                            #25

                            @rolle

                            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. 🤷🏼‍♂️

                            1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                            0
                            • rolle@mementomori.socialR rolle@mementomori.social

                              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

                              tommi@pan.rentT This user is from outside of this forum
                              tommi@pan.rentT This user is from outside of this forum
                              tommi@pan.rent
                              schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                              #26

                              @rolle What do you think, @sirodoht?

                              1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                              0
                              • rolle@mementomori.socialR rolle@mementomori.social

                                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

                                zaire@fedi.absturztau.beZ This user is from outside of this forum
                                zaire@fedi.absturztau.beZ This user is from outside of this forum
                                zaire@fedi.absturztau.be
                                schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                                #27

                                @rolle atproto is quite literally a scam built on gaslighting with false promises ^^^^

                                1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                                0
                                • rolle@mementomori.socialR rolle@mementomori.social

                                  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

                                  lach@social.linux.pizzaL This user is from outside of this forum
                                  lach@social.linux.pizzaL This user is from outside of this forum
                                  lach@social.linux.pizza
                                  schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                                  #28

                                  @rolle

                                  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:

                                  https://github.com/larsnygard/SnartNet

                                  rolle@mementomori.socialR 1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                                  0
                                  • lach@social.linux.pizzaL lach@social.linux.pizza

                                    @rolle

                                    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:

                                    https://github.com/larsnygard/SnartNet

                                    rolle@mementomori.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                                    rolle@mementomori.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                                    rolle@mementomori.social
                                    schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                                    #29

                                    @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@social.linux.pizzaL 1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                                    0
                                    • rolle@mementomori.socialR rolle@mementomori.social

                                      @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@social.linux.pizzaL This user is from outside of this forum
                                      lach@social.linux.pizzaL This user is from outside of this forum
                                      lach@social.linux.pizza
                                      schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                                      #30

                                      @rolle

                                      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.

                                      rolle@mementomori.socialR 1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                                      0
                                      • lach@social.linux.pizzaL lach@social.linux.pizza

                                        @rolle

                                        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.

                                        rolle@mementomori.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                                        rolle@mementomori.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                                        rolle@mementomori.social
                                        schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                                        #31

                                        @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.

                                        1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                                        0
                                        • homegrown@social.growyourown.servicesH homegrown@social.growyourown.services

                                          @zotheca @rolle

                                          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

                                          ? Offline
                                          ? Offline
                                          Gast
                                          schrieb zuletzt editiert von
                                          #32

                                          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

                                          1 Antwort Letzte Antwort
                                          0
                                          • viennawriter@literatur.socialV viennawriter@literatur.social shared this topic
                                          Antworten
                                          • In einem neuen Thema antworten
                                          Anmelden zum Antworten
                                          • Älteste zuerst
                                          • Neuste zuerst
                                          • Meiste Stimmen



                                          Copyright (c) 2025 abSpecktrum (@abspecklog@fedimonster.de)

                                          Erstellt mit Schlaflosigkeit, Kaffee, Brokkoli & ♥

                                          Impressum | Datenschutzerklärung | Nutzungsbedingungen

                                          • Anmelden

                                          • Du hast noch kein Konto? Registrieren

                                          • Anmelden oder registrieren, um zu suchen
                                          • Erster Beitrag
                                            Letzter Beitrag
                                          0
                                          • Home
                                          • Aktuell
                                          • Tags
                                          • Über dieses Forum