• einkorn@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    224
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Bluesky, the decentralized social network […]

    Were only one instance exist or did I miss something?

    • Pirata@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I think their initial selling point was that Eventually©®™ Bluesky would federate with the rest of the Fediverse.

      Is anybody really surprised that a social media corporation didn’t make it their utmost priority to allow their userbase to connect out of their proprietary platform?

      • Natanael@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        They never said they’d do so natively with other protocols - but they support Bridgy, so you already can do that.

        • Pirata@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Interesting how other instances of the fediverse have no such restrictions. It’s almost as if they want to make it as difficult as possible so that people just don’t federate.

    • InfiniteHench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      147
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      As I understand it, the protocol has the ability to decentralize built in. But the technical requirements are prohibitively high to the point only large businesses or corps could afford to do it. I also believe (someone correct me) the company hasn’t switched on the functionality yet.

      • Natanael@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Maybe you remember PDS federation not being open for a while, but it’s open now.

        Running a public appview can be very expensive, but they’re working on making it cheaper to run one with a limited scope.

      • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        17 hours ago

        The biggest thing is that you need to be manually authorized by them for federation. They will only ever federate with servers that arent serious enough competition to lead to democratization of the overall network.

        • Natanael@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          No, PDS federation is fully open now.

          They’re also actively supporting development of 3rd party appviews and relays.

          • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 hour ago

            The power dynamic is still 1000000:1 they can do whatever they want and you will have to follow. If they defederate you, there is no value in your self hosted instance.

      • Drunemeton@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        57
        ·
        1 day ago

        Last heard (a few months ago) the cost is in storage. The protocol isn’t too complicated now, but it generates a shit ton of data, and IIRC you need a minimum of 3 copies.

        • mac@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          Storage is cheap whwn it comes to webhosting and 3 replicas is honestly not much when it comes to enterprise standards. I think cloud storage providers like backblaze keep something like 9 copies of data across different mediums

      • noodlejetski@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        1 day ago

        my mom has always told me that I had the potential to work at NASA. but the requirements are prohibitively high

        • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          The “ability” to decentralize has costs that scale quadratically. So in every practical sense, it cannot be decentralized. At best it could have a few servers that participate.

          • Natanael@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 hours ago

            No, it doesn’t scale “quadratically”. That’s what going viral on Mastodon does to a small instance, not on bluesky. Pretty much everything scales linearly. The difference is certain components handle a larger fraction of the work (appview and relay).

            Both a bluesky appview and a Mastodon instance scales by the size of the userbase which it interacts with. Mastodon likes to imagine that the userbase will always be consistent, but it isn’t. Anything viewed by a large part of the whole Mastodon network forces the host to serve the entirety of the network and all its interactions. So does a bluesky appview, in just the same way, but they acknowledge this upfront.

            Meanwhile, you CAN host a bluesky PDS account host and have your traffic scale only by the rate of your users’ activity + number of relays you push these updates to. Going viral doesn’t kill your bandwidth.

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        This is a little bit more black and white compared with the other responses. 🙈

    • massi1008@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      You can easily host your own instance with a simple docker stack.

      I dont know of any public instances except the main but I also havent searched.