Re: [liberationtech] Decentralization/Federation

[carlo von lynX]

TL;DR: Distributed systems have the potential of providing
the sort of Internet that we really need, but they cannot
come about and win over cheap cloud services if we don't 
embrace policy that will make the old surveillance economy 
model illegal within a reasonable time frame.


On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 07:29:03PM +0200, Alberto Cammozzo wrote:
> I think this technical analysis should open a more wide debate before
> jumping to "will work/ will not work" conclusions: issues of such
> complexity could not have a purely technical solution.

Full ack.

> Economic, social, juridical, political issues should also be taken into
> account.

Yes please. We know that distributed tech can work, but the
market is so borked, we can only establish the right thing
by acknowledging how much the status quo is against human and
civil rights and needs to be forbidden by policy. Only then
industry would have to pick up what scientists and enthusiasts
have been working on in the past decades, and turn it into a
product. Turn it into the Next Generation Internet protocol
stack that is shipped with your new phone.

Back in 2011 we published papers and even cartoons to
explain how federation would not work out, but -alas-
big players like W3C were too immersed into promoting
the legend of the federated social web that there just
was no way to get through. Here's some stuff, tell me
if there's anything wrong about what we said back then:

Comic: http://my.pages.de/dsn-vn/
Paper: http://secushare.org/2011-FSW-Scalability-Paranoia 

We even predicted how servers would not be trustworthy
to maintain our data, which is now confirmed by all the
rage about "hardware trojans". So can we now finally
contribute our knowledge to tech and policy-making after
five years of distraction?

> Defending Internet Freedom through Decentralization: Back to the Future?
> 
>  
>  
> 

Citing its conclusion:
"The challenge is not just building decentralized software or creating 
alternative platforms, but creating options for users that are financially 
sustainable, usable and compelling."

And here the simple lesson to learn is that you cannot
compete with players that offer a better service by
monetizing on everybody's civil and human rights.
As soon as this is no longer legal, several alternatives
become financially sustainable and compelling.

The thing that remains to find out is whether federated 
technologies can ever become usable enough to compete
with distributed ones, and whether the fact they depend
on large corruptible servers makes them just as non-
compliant to strict civic data protection as the silo
offerings.

Whereas for distributed systems, they are damn hard to
develop, but once they work they are super-easy to use
and do not need to put civic data into any wrong places.

"Today’s advocates of decentralization tend to view any third party 
intermediary as a threat, a choke point that could be used to censor speech. 
For them, the ideal web landscape is one of self-publishers, who can directly 
reach their online audiences without the need for a third party service to host 
and curate their content."

And that is exactly what you can achieve with distributed
technology, not federated.

"But as our case studies illustrate, values of individual empowerment and 
autonomy need to be balanced by a recognition that most people are going to 
experience the web through a set of trusted third party services."

Whoops, dear authors, here's your mistake: you are falling
for the market fallacy: assuming things will remain how they
are because that's how it has always been. You are not taking 
into account that legislation policy can eliminate such third
parties as there is no way they can be entrusted with the power
to manipulate individuals, groups and entire populations. Once
those are gone you still have companies that want to sell
devices to you - and they can sell them to you equipped with
a Next Generation Internet that does not need trusted third
parties. The precondition for seeing that happen is to impede
the easy and cheap solution which is threatening the future
of democracy, by law.

"Rather than striving for censorship-proof technology, a better goal would 
be to pursue strategic structural, legal and normative shifts that support 
greater experimentation and user choice in the way platforms curate content and 
govern community interactions."

Don't know what's wrong about censorship-proof tech, but
it certainly isn't the biggest issue at stake.

"We recommend two umbrella strategies for achieving this goal: 1) 
developing a robust set of tools and legal frameworks for establishing consumer 
rights over the content and data users generate on platforms and 2) increasing 
transparency and experimentation around methods of content curation and 

[liberationtech] Decentralization/Federation

[Alberto Cammozzo]

Hi,
an interesting position from MIT Media Lab that is at least in part
relevanto to a thread launched by Yosem in Frebruary on this list [1]
Defending​ ​ Internet​ ​ Freedom​ ​ through​ ​ Decentralization: Back​ ​
to​ ​ the​ ​ Future?

 
 


I think this technical analysis should open a more wide debate before
jumping to "will work/ will not work" conclusions: issues of such
complexity could not have a purely technical solution.
Economic, social, juridical, political issues should also be taken into
account.
For instance the report does not consider the innovations introduced in
a global data market by the EU GDPR.

Bests,

Alberto


[1]


-- 

TagMeNot
http://tagMeNot.info
@dontTag

-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing the moderator at 
zakwh...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Decentralization

[J.M. Porup]

Starving Silicon Valley of tech talent, ending the "brain drain," and
encouraging talented engineers to stay home--or go somewhere else--is an
important part of disrupting US control of the internet, and
decentralizing that power around the world.

LatAm Startups encourages Latin American startups to come to Canada 
instead of the Valley. It's still FVEYES, but it's a step in the right 
direction.

LatAm Startups launched their fourth annual LatAm Startups Conference today:

https://www.latamstartups.biz/conference2017.html

bonus: President Trump seems to be doing a lot of our work for us all of
a sudden.

jmp

-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Decentralization

[Isaac Mao]

Twitter is blackout just now.  I forever echo a universal architecture on
peer-to-peer service, but most importantly, rewarding people's sharing.
Some cryptocurrency can be applied, and a good story for fund raising.

With the launch of micro-payment-friendly currencies like Musicoin,
rewarding social media stream is much more valid than before. E.g. like,
subscribe, even "dislike" can be a transaction. Just my 2 cents here, :)
[image: Inline image 1]

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Richard Brooks  wrote:

> On the other hand, why are they using gmail?
>
> Our university outsourced email to Google. They
> software up to date, handle the security, provide
> convenient cloud access (I personally dislike
> their GUIs),  etc. For our university, this decision
> probably did make our email traffic more secure
> as well.
>
> I am not wild about the decision our university
> made, but for most users using Gmail is probably
> the more reasonable and secure choice. Not the
> choice that I would make for myself. Being spied
> on bothers me.
>
> But, if you want to have the broad base of users
> move elsewhere, you need to address the clear
> advantages that Gmail provides.
>
> Political, social, and economics arguments will not
> convince most people.
>
> On 02/07/2017 07:06 AM, Andrés Pacheco wrote:
> > Signore Camozzo hit the nail on the head, twice. So then I have to draw
> the proper conclusion...
> >
> > 1. We need concerted action to set non-proprietary communication
> standards at the application level, much like the TCP-IP Protocols did for
> the lower layer(s)
> >
> > 2. This action HAS to be POLITICAL, since it's not just a matter of
> devising technical standards, but to have them ADOPTED by the majority. We
> need the 75% of his email correspondents to not use proprietary email
> platforms (and so forth and so on, and including me and this email itself!)
> >
> > Ergo, it is at best naive trying to separate "Technology" from
> "Politics:" all Technology is Political, and ignoring this only rubber
> stamps the technology of the proprietary powers that be.
> >
> > Not by chance it's Technology companies at the top of the "most valuable
> company of the world" food chain: Google and Apple. If that's not a
> political statement, then what is? Where is "the swamp?"
> >
> > Regards | Saludos,
> >
> > Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes
> > 
> >
> >> On Feb 7, 2017, at 5:34 AM, Alberto Cammozzo 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> So far so good, but what is it all for? ~75% of my email correspondents
> >> use Gmail ...
> >> You cant decentralize alone...
> >> We need to fix this quickly or the information revolution will be lost
> >> and archived as an annex of the industrial revolution.
>
>
> --
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations
> of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/m
> ailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change
> password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
>
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Decentralization

[Richard Brooks]

On the other hand, why are they using gmail?

Our university outsourced email to Google. They
software up to date, handle the security, provide
convenient cloud access (I personally dislike
their GUIs),  etc. For our university, this decision
probably did make our email traffic more secure
as well.

I am not wild about the decision our university
made, but for most users using Gmail is probably
the more reasonable and secure choice. Not the
choice that I would make for myself. Being spied
on bothers me.

But, if you want to have the broad base of users
move elsewhere, you need to address the clear
advantages that Gmail provides.

Political, social, and economics arguments will not
convince most people.

On 02/07/2017 07:06 AM, Andrés Pacheco wrote:
> Signore Camozzo hit the nail on the head, twice. So then I have to draw the 
> proper conclusion...
> 
> 1. We need concerted action to set non-proprietary communication standards at 
> the application level, much like the TCP-IP Protocols did for the lower 
> layer(s)
> 
> 2. This action HAS to be POLITICAL, since it's not just a matter of devising 
> technical standards, but to have them ADOPTED by the majority. We need the 
> 75% of his email correspondents to not use proprietary email platforms (and 
> so forth and so on, and including me and this email itself!)
> 
> Ergo, it is at best naive trying to separate "Technology" from "Politics:" 
> all Technology is Political, and ignoring this only rubber stamps the 
> technology of the proprietary powers that be.
> 
> Not by chance it's Technology companies at the top of the "most valuable 
> company of the world" food chain: Google and Apple. If that's not a political 
> statement, then what is? Where is "the swamp?"
> 
> Regards | Saludos,
> 
> Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes
> 
> 
>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 5:34 AM, Alberto Cammozzo  wrote:
>>
>> So far so good, but what is it all for? ~75% of my email correspondents
>> use Gmail ...
>> You cant decentralize alone...
>> We need to fix this quickly or the information revolution will be lost
>> and archived as an annex of the industrial revolution.


-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Decentralization

[Lluís Batlle i Rossell]

When I said using Free Software, I meant running it as well, of course.

But the main point I said was that you may have most of your communication
with your colleagues not end-to-end encryption, while most WhatsApp users
are likely to have that.

As some practical results, most people may be having far more end-to-end
encrypted communication than you and I. That's quite disturbing, isn't it?
:)

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:34:06PM +0100, Alberto Cammozzo wrote:
> Thank you Lluís,
> 
> as you say, "likely-private communications": you can't trust proprietary
> software, but even free software can't be trusted if it's run behind
> closed doors.
> 
> I run all my servers, I sign my certificates, use only free software and
> encryption.
> All my DNS traffic runs through VPN to avoid ISPs DPI tampering.
> I use alternative search engines and tracking protection plungins in my
> browsers, installed Cyanogen Mod on my phone (no G apps), shut down
> Gmail and Dropbox accounts and moved some servers in EU after Snowden
> revelations.
> Shut down Linkedin account after MS acquisition as well.
> No Facebook, no WhatsApp.
> 
> So far so good, but what is it all for? ~75% of my email correspondents
> use Gmail ...
> You cant decentralize alone...
> We need to fix this quickly or the information revolution will be lost
> and archived as an annex of the industrial revolution.
> 
> Bests,
> 
> Alberto
> 
> fonts.googleapis.com is the center-node of my networking graph.
> 
> -
> Alberto Cammozzo
> http://tagmenot.info
> @dontTag
> 
> On 07/02/2017 10:56, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> > Thank you for this writing and the link to the blogpost. I feel quite
> > identified.
> >
> > I also host my email and, moreover, I'm lazy to set up the ssl for all
> > that. That's enough headache, and I also have to use a third-party MTA to
> > be trusted, etc. And all the colleagues use email.
> >
> > But this means that I often face this situation: what is more important:
> > to run free software, or to have likely-private (but I can't check)
> > communications with my colleagues?
> >
> > I choose the free software, when I am faced with that question. And I get
> > into that question quite often.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:35:38PM +0100, Alberto Cammozzo wrote:
> >> As Moxie Marlinspike put it: "cannibalizing a federated
> >> application-layer protocol into a centralized service is almost a sure
> >> recipe for a successful consumer product today."
> >> Successful, but short-sighted. No federated or even interoperable
> >> infrastructure will likely emerge from here.
> >>
> >> If e-mail system was to be built today, we would have one for Facebook,
> >> one for Google, one for Apple...
> >> All of them proprietary and probably non-interoperable: you would need
> >> at least four accounts to talk to everybody.
> >>
> >> Our current Web-centered communication ecosystem is similar to the
> >> balkanized pre-Internet: Bitnet, SNA, DECNET, Fidonet, OSI X.400, uucp...
> >> IBM, Digital and others were then profitably competing over a
> >> communication infrastructure and had no interest in cooperating to build
> >> a federated one.
> >> This impasse ended with government-funded TCP/IP: it was suitable,
> >> simple, free, open. It won quickly (but ICT users were literate then).
> >> What was the return on investment? On the immediate, zero.
> >> On the long period? Huge. ROI was systemic.
> >>
> >> We are in a similar market failure condition: "centralized" dominant
> >> companies won't drop profitable business, and "decentralized" startups
> >> wont get zero-ROI funding.
> >> Business can go an for a while in this ecosystem (where most users don't
> >> care of the architecture).
> >> It makes rather sense that governments, or non-profits or crowdfunded
> >> initiatives sponsor systemic infrastructures upon which business can
> >> evolve and competition thrive (as it makes sense that governments break
> >> monopolies, too).
> >> The EU should be a good candidate, only if it was rational about
> >> competition.
> >>
> >> Bests,
> >> Alberto
> >>
> >> [1] 
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Alberto Cammozzo
> >> http://tagmenot.info
> >> @dontTag
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 05/02/2017 21:17, Yosem Companys wrote:
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> One of the problems may decentralized startups are confronting in
> >>> Silicon Valley is that venture capitalists are telling them that they
> >>> need to be centralized because there is no business model in
> >>> decentralization. 
> >>>
> >>> For an example, think Diaspora: The original vision of Diaspora was a
> >>> social network where each person could have his or her own node in the
> >>> network and connect to others to share data similar to how Napster
> >>> connected people to download music. But the data would live in your
> >>> machine, not Facebook's.
> >>>
> >>> Can anyone think of decentralized business models that are profitable
> >>> so folks on 

Re: [liberationtech] Decentralization

[Andrés Pacheco]

Signore Camozzo hit the nail on the head, twice. So then I have to draw the 
proper conclusion...

1. We need concerted action to set non-proprietary communication standards at 
the application level, much like the TCP-IP Protocols did for the lower layer(s)

2. This action HAS to be POLITICAL, since it's not just a matter of devising 
technical standards, but to have them ADOPTED by the majority. We need the 75% 
of his email correspondents to not use proprietary email platforms (and so 
forth and so on, and including me and this email itself!)

Ergo, it is at best naive trying to separate "Technology" from "Politics:" all 
Technology is Political, and ignoring this only rubber stamps the technology of 
the proprietary powers that be.

Not by chance it's Technology companies at the top of the "most valuable 
company of the world" food chain: Google and Apple. If that's not a political 
statement, then what is? Where is "the swamp?"

Regards | Saludos,

Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes


> On Feb 7, 2017, at 5:34 AM, Alberto Cammozzo  wrote:
> 
> So far so good, but what is it all for? ~75% of my email correspondents
> use Gmail ...
> You cant decentralize alone...
> We need to fix this quickly or the information revolution will be lost
> and archived as an annex of the industrial revolution.
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Decentralization

[Alberto Cammozzo]

Thank you Lluís,

as you say, "likely-private communications": you can't trust proprietary
software, but even free software can't be trusted if it's run behind
closed doors.

I run all my servers, I sign my certificates, use only free software and
encryption.
All my DNS traffic runs through VPN to avoid ISPs DPI tampering.
I use alternative search engines and tracking protection plungins in my
browsers, installed Cyanogen Mod on my phone (no G apps), shut down
Gmail and Dropbox accounts and moved some servers in EU after Snowden
revelations.
Shut down Linkedin account after MS acquisition as well.
No Facebook, no WhatsApp.

So far so good, but what is it all for? ~75% of my email correspondents
use Gmail ...
You cant decentralize alone...
We need to fix this quickly or the information revolution will be lost
and archived as an annex of the industrial revolution.

Bests,

Alberto

fonts.googleapis.com is the center-node of my networking graph.

-
Alberto Cammozzo
http://tagmenot.info
@dontTag

On 07/02/2017 10:56, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> Thank you for this writing and the link to the blogpost. I feel quite
> identified.
>
> I also host my email and, moreover, I'm lazy to set up the ssl for all
> that. That's enough headache, and I also have to use a third-party MTA to
> be trusted, etc. And all the colleagues use email.
>
> But this means that I often face this situation: what is more important:
> to run free software, or to have likely-private (but I can't check)
> communications with my colleagues?
>
> I choose the free software, when I am faced with that question. And I get
> into that question quite often.
>
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:35:38PM +0100, Alberto Cammozzo wrote:
>> As Moxie Marlinspike put it: "cannibalizing a federated
>> application-layer protocol into a centralized service is almost a sure
>> recipe for a successful consumer product today."
>> Successful, but short-sighted. No federated or even interoperable
>> infrastructure will likely emerge from here.
>>
>> If e-mail system was to be built today, we would have one for Facebook,
>> one for Google, one for Apple...
>> All of them proprietary and probably non-interoperable: you would need
>> at least four accounts to talk to everybody.
>>
>> Our current Web-centered communication ecosystem is similar to the
>> balkanized pre-Internet: Bitnet, SNA, DECNET, Fidonet, OSI X.400, uucp...
>> IBM, Digital and others were then profitably competing over a
>> communication infrastructure and had no interest in cooperating to build
>> a federated one.
>> This impasse ended with government-funded TCP/IP: it was suitable,
>> simple, free, open. It won quickly (but ICT users were literate then).
>> What was the return on investment? On the immediate, zero.
>> On the long period? Huge. ROI was systemic.
>>
>> We are in a similar market failure condition: "centralized" dominant
>> companies won't drop profitable business, and "decentralized" startups
>> wont get zero-ROI funding.
>> Business can go an for a while in this ecosystem (where most users don't
>> care of the architecture).
>> It makes rather sense that governments, or non-profits or crowdfunded
>> initiatives sponsor systemic infrastructures upon which business can
>> evolve and competition thrive (as it makes sense that governments break
>> monopolies, too).
>> The EU should be a good candidate, only if it was rational about
>> competition.
>>
>> Bests,
>> Alberto
>>
>> [1] 
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alberto Cammozzo
>> http://tagmenot.info
>> @dontTag
>>
>>
>>
>> On 05/02/2017 21:17, Yosem Companys wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> One of the problems may decentralized startups are confronting in
>>> Silicon Valley is that venture capitalists are telling them that they
>>> need to be centralized because there is no business model in
>>> decentralization. 
>>>
>>> For an example, think Diaspora: The original vision of Diaspora was a
>>> social network where each person could have his or her own node in the
>>> network and connect to others to share data similar to how Napster
>>> connected people to download music. But the data would live in your
>>> machine, not Facebook's.
>>>
>>> Can anyone think of decentralized business models that are profitable
>>> so folks on this list who are struggling with pitching
>>> decentralization as a business model can succeed?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yosem
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> -
>> TagMeNot
>> http://tagMeNot.info
>> @dontTag
>>
>> -- 
>> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
>> list guidelines will get you moderated: 
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
>> change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
>> compa...@stanford.edu.



-- 
-
TagMeNot
http://tagMeNot.info
@dontTag

-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 

Re: [liberationtech] Decentralization

[Lluís Batlle i Rossell]

Thank you for this writing and the link to the blogpost. I feel quite
identified.

I also host my email and, moreover, I'm lazy to set up the ssl for all
that. That's enough headache, and I also have to use a third-party MTA to
be trusted, etc. And all the colleagues use email.

But this means that I often face this situation: what is more important:
to run free software, or to have likely-private (but I can't check)
communications with my colleagues?

I choose the free software, when I am faced with that question. And I get
into that question quite often.

On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:35:38PM +0100, Alberto Cammozzo wrote:
> As Moxie Marlinspike put it: "cannibalizing a federated
> application-layer protocol into a centralized service is almost a sure
> recipe for a successful consumer product today."
> Successful, but short-sighted. No federated or even interoperable
> infrastructure will likely emerge from here.
> 
> If e-mail system was to be built today, we would have one for Facebook,
> one for Google, one for Apple...
> All of them proprietary and probably non-interoperable: you would need
> at least four accounts to talk to everybody.
> 
> Our current Web-centered communication ecosystem is similar to the
> balkanized pre-Internet: Bitnet, SNA, DECNET, Fidonet, OSI X.400, uucp...
> IBM, Digital and others were then profitably competing over a
> communication infrastructure and had no interest in cooperating to build
> a federated one.
> This impasse ended with government-funded TCP/IP: it was suitable,
> simple, free, open. It won quickly (but ICT users were literate then).
> What was the return on investment? On the immediate, zero.
> On the long period? Huge. ROI was systemic.
> 
> We are in a similar market failure condition: "centralized" dominant
> companies won't drop profitable business, and "decentralized" startups
> wont get zero-ROI funding.
> Business can go an for a while in this ecosystem (where most users don't
> care of the architecture).
> It makes rather sense that governments, or non-profits or crowdfunded
> initiatives sponsor systemic infrastructures upon which business can
> evolve and competition thrive (as it makes sense that governments break
> monopolies, too).
> The EU should be a good candidate, only if it was rational about
> competition.
> 
> Bests,
> Alberto
> 
> [1] 
> 
> 
> --
> Alberto Cammozzo
> http://tagmenot.info
> @dontTag
> 
> 
> 
> On 05/02/2017 21:17, Yosem Companys wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > One of the problems may decentralized startups are confronting in
> > Silicon Valley is that venture capitalists are telling them that they
> > need to be centralized because there is no business model in
> > decentralization. 
> >
> > For an example, think Diaspora: The original vision of Diaspora was a
> > social network where each person could have his or her own node in the
> > network and connect to others to share data similar to how Napster
> > connected people to download music. But the data would live in your
> > machine, not Facebook's.
> >
> > Can anyone think of decentralized business models that are profitable
> > so folks on this list who are struggling with pitching
> > decentralization as a business model can succeed?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yosem
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> -
> TagMeNot
> http://tagMeNot.info
> @dontTag
> 
> -- 
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
> list guidelines will get you moderated: 
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
> change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
> compa...@stanford.edu.

-- 
(Escriu-me xifrat si saps PGP / Write ciphered if you know PGP)
PGP key D4831A8A - https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Decentralization

[Alberto Cammozzo]

As Moxie Marlinspike put it: "cannibalizing a federated
application-layer protocol into a centralized service is almost a sure
recipe for a successful consumer product today."
Successful, but short-sighted. No federated or even interoperable
infrastructure will likely emerge from here.

If e-mail system was to be built today, we would have one for Facebook,
one for Google, one for Apple...
All of them proprietary and probably non-interoperable: you would need
at least four accounts to talk to everybody.

Our current Web-centered communication ecosystem is similar to the
balkanized pre-Internet: Bitnet, SNA, DECNET, Fidonet, OSI X.400, uucp...
IBM, Digital and others were then profitably competing over a
communication infrastructure and had no interest in cooperating to build
a federated one.
This impasse ended with government-funded TCP/IP: it was suitable,
simple, free, open. It won quickly (but ICT users were literate then).
What was the return on investment? On the immediate, zero.
On the long period? Huge. ROI was systemic.

We are in a similar market failure condition: "centralized" dominant
companies won't drop profitable business, and "decentralized" startups
wont get zero-ROI funding.
Business can go an for a while in this ecosystem (where most users don't
care of the architecture).
It makes rather sense that governments, or non-profits or crowdfunded
initiatives sponsor systemic infrastructures upon which business can
evolve and competition thrive (as it makes sense that governments break
monopolies, too).
The EU should be a good candidate, only if it was rational about
competition.

Bests,
Alberto

[1] 


--
Alberto Cammozzo
http://tagmenot.info
@dontTag



On 05/02/2017 21:17, Yosem Companys wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> One of the problems may decentralized startups are confronting in
> Silicon Valley is that venture capitalists are telling them that they
> need to be centralized because there is no business model in
> decentralization. 
>
> For an example, think Diaspora: The original vision of Diaspora was a
> social network where each person could have his or her own node in the
> network and connect to others to share data similar to how Napster
> connected people to download music. But the data would live in your
> machine, not Facebook's.
>
> Can anyone think of decentralized business models that are profitable
> so folks on this list who are struggling with pitching
> decentralization as a business model can succeed?
>
> Thanks,
> Yosem
>
>


-- 
-
TagMeNot
http://tagMeNot.info
@dontTag

-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Decentralization

[J.M. Porup]

On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 12:17:49PM -0800, Yosem Companys wrote:
> Can anyone think of decentralized business models that are profitable so
> folks on this list who are struggling with pitching decentralization as a
> business model can succeed?

The centralized business model of Silicon Valley poses a threat to the
national sovereignty of many nations around the world. [0] To own a 
nation's data is to own that nation.

Pitching decentralized solutions to foreign governments--who grow weary
of the yoke of American empire--seems worth exploring.

Riding a tide of anti-Americanism in the Trump area may yield global
benefits in the form of truly decentralized solutions.

jmp

[0] https://medium.com/@toholdaquill/plunder-it-s-a-thing-b449485812bc
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Decentralization

[Aymeric Vitte]

Yes, already posted on this list:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2017-February/016685.html
, for example 2.1.1 p22, very brief and sketched but plausible, unlike
many inventions where blockchains (who are unfortunately today
everything but decentralized) are supposed to solve everything, many
want to use them for free, but this is not possible, because of the
fees, about the same can apply for decentralized apps


Le 05/02/2017 à 21:17, Yosem Companys a écrit :
> Hi All,
>
> One of the problems may decentralized startups are confronting in
> Silicon Valley is that venture capitalists are telling them that they
> need to be centralized because there is no business model in
> decentralization. 
>
> For an example, think Diaspora: The original vision of Diaspora was a
> social network where each person could have his or her own node in the
> network and connect to others to share data similar to how Napster
> connected people to download music. But the data would live in your
> machine, not Facebook's.
>
> Can anyone think of decentralized business models that are profitable
> so folks on this list who are struggling with pitching
> decentralization as a business model can succeed?
>
> Thanks,
> Yosem
>
>

-- 
Zcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets
Bitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist
Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms

-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Decentralization

[Zachary Stickney]

please take me off this list, the unsubscribe didn't work



From: liberationtech <liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu> on behalf of 
R. Jason Cronk <r...@privacymaverick.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:15 PM
To: liberationtech
Subject: Re: [liberationtech] Decentralization

There are numerous issues with a "decentralized" company seeking funding. 
Investors seek some sort of monopolistic control which allows for rent seeking 
activity, which turns an investor's small investment into a larger return. 
That's why you often find investor looking for patentable ideas (government 
granted monopoly) or something that has traction in the market (potentially 
market monopoly, switching effects, network effects, economies of scale, etc). 
Decentralized startups almost always lack these.

Think about decentralization outside the world of software. As example, 
consider family farming versus  factory farming. "Hello Ms. Investor, I'm going 
to give chickens away and let everybody start their own family farm and sell 
local eggs to their local market." versus "Hello Ms. Investor, I've been 
granted a patent on my process to artificially grow eggs in a lab. Nobody will 
be able to compete with me in the egg market for the next 17 years." As an 
investor, where are you going to earn a return?

This funding problem is part of the reason, in my opinion, for Bitcoin's 
relative slow adoption curve as a payment mechanism. Nobody has an incentive to 
push it in the market because they ultimately won't be able to reap the 
rewards. If I'm Paypal, I can give everyone $10 in their account to send to 
other people, until I get a million users. If I'm a bitcoin wallet provider and 
I tried that, everyone would get their $10 in bitcoin and go to another wallet 
provider.

That being said, there are some potential business models for businesses 
pushing decentralization

1) Provide a centralized service to the decentralized businesses. All 
McDonald's look the same because they are centrally controlled (though not 
centrally owned). Many Chinese take out menus look the same not because they 
are centrally controlled but because just a handful of companies produce those 
menus.
2) Find a way to extract rent from the decentralized businesses. The technology 
for matching passengers and drivers could easily be decentralized for an Uber 
competitor but people want consistency. The competitor could license their name 
to driver's (and validate those drivers for criminal background checks for 
instance). So any driver could join the network but you can pay slightly more 
to have one that has been verified. Of course their might be competition 
setting in but there is where market penetration comes in. I even say I'm going 
to call Uber when I mean Lyft.
3) Best in class and support. Linux is open source software. Anyone can run it. 
People still pay Red Hat for support.
4) Control the initial supply of something. Anyone can mine ZCash but the 
company has a quantity of pre-mined coins. Anyone can grow marijuana but if you 
create a new strain and get demand there, you have the first seeds to sell.

That's all I can think of immediately. It is not an easy problem.

Jason






On 2017-02-05 15:17, Yosem Companys wrote:
Hi All,

One of the problems may decentralized startups are confronting in
Silicon Valley is that venture capitalists are telling them that they
need to be centralized because there is no business model in
decentralization.

For an example, think Diaspora: The original vision of Diaspora was a
social network where each person could have his or her own node in the
network and connect to others to share data similar to how Napster
connected people to download music. But the data would live in your
machine, not Facebook's.

Can anyone think of decentralized business models that are profitable
so folks on this list who are struggling with pitching
decentralization as a business model can succeed?

Thanks,
Yosem
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.

Re: [liberationtech] Decentralization

[R. Jason Cronk]

There are numerous issues with a "decentralized" company seeking
funding. Investors seek some sort of monopolistic control which allows
for rent seeking activity, which turns an investor's small investment
into a larger return. That's why you often find investor looking for
patentable ideas (government granted monopoly) or something that has
traction in the market (potentially market monopoly, switching effects,
network effects, economies of scale, etc). Decentralized startups almost
always lack these. 

Think about decentralization outside the world of software. As example,
consider family farming versus  factory farming. "Hello Ms. Investor,
I'm going to give chickens away and let everybody start their own family
farm and sell local eggs to their local market." versus "Hello Ms.
Investor, I've been granted a patent on my process to artificially grow
eggs in a lab. Nobody will be able to compete with me in the egg market
for the next 17 years." As an investor, where are you going to earn a
return? 

This funding problem is part of the reason, in my opinion, for Bitcoin's
relative slow adoption curve as a payment mechanism. Nobody has an
incentive to push it in the market because they ultimately won't be able
to reap the rewards. If I'm Paypal, I can give everyone $10 in their
account to send to other people, until I get a million users. If I'm a
bitcoin wallet provider and I tried that, everyone would get their $10
in bitcoin and go to another wallet provider. 

That being said, there are some potential business models for businesses
pushing decentralization 

1) Provide a centralized service to the decentralized businesses. All
McDonald's look the same because they are centrally controlled (though
not centrally owned). Many Chinese take out menus look the same not
because they are centrally controlled but because just a handful of
companies produce those menus. 
2) Find a way to extract rent from the decentralized businesses. The
technology for matching passengers and drivers could easily be
decentralized for an Uber competitor but people want consistency. The
competitor could license their name to driver's (and validate those
drivers for criminal background checks for instance). So any driver
could join the network but you can pay slightly more to have one that
has been verified. Of course their might be competition setting in but
there is where market penetration comes in. I even say I'm going to call
Uber when I mean Lyft. 
3) Best in class and support. Linux is open source software. Anyone can
run it. People still pay Red Hat for support. 
4) Control the initial supply of something. Anyone can mine ZCash but
the company has a quantity of pre-mined coins. Anyone can grow marijuana
but if you create a new strain and get demand there, you have the first
seeds to sell. 

That's all I can think of immediately. It is not an easy problem. 

Jason 

On 2017-02-05 15:17, Yosem Companys wrote: 

> Hi All,
> 
> One of the problems may decentralized startups are confronting in
> Silicon Valley is that venture capitalists are telling them that they
> need to be centralized because there is no business model in
> decentralization. 
> 
> For an example, think Diaspora: The original vision of Diaspora was a
> social network where each person could have his or her own node in the
> network and connect to others to share data similar to how Napster
> connected people to download music. But the data would live in your
> machine, not Facebook's.
> 
> Can anyone think of decentralized business models that are profitable
> so folks on this list who are struggling with pitching
> decentralization as a business model can succeed?
> 
> Thanks,
> Yosem
 -- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.

[liberationtech] Decentralization

[Yosem Companys]

Hi All,

One of the problems may decentralized startups are confronting in Silicon
Valley is that venture capitalists are telling them that they need to be
centralized because there is no business model in decentralization.

For an example, think Diaspora: The original vision of Diaspora was a
social network where each person could have his or her own node in the
network and connect to others to share data similar to how Napster
connected people to download music. But the data would live in your
machine, not Facebook's.

Can anyone think of decentralized business models that are profitable so
folks on this list who are struggling with pitching decentralization as a
business model can succeed?

Thanks,
Yosem
-- 
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of 
list guidelines will get you moderated: 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, 
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at 
compa...@stanford.edu.