Do you think Federated networks are the future or do you think Peer to Peer networks are the future? Which do you think is better?
Alright so I'm not an expert so I might not be explaining it correctly.
Federated Network: Multiple instances sharing content, such as Lemmy
Peer to Peer Network: There is no "instances", just peers. Many peers sharing content. Every user is a peer. There is no server costs, because every device connected to the network is acting like a mini-server. It will cost your device some storage space and network bandwith depending on the how the software is designed.
Or do you think Centralized servers are still gonna dominate the future?
The problem with peer to peer is that it would require you to have stuff saved on your device and my sister can’t even keep her phone “empty enough” with 256GB so I think local “hubs” is the better right now.
Isn’t it essentially similar to the dark net that has been going like that successfully since forever ?
With distributed hash tables it is manageable. You do something like "store three copies on three peers" and as long as one of them is online the post is accessible. This is actually better than the way lemmy does it now. In principle each lemmy server stores the posts from its communities, and a copy of each post from communities its users are subscribed to. But since all instances are federated so well, in practice each of the 1000 lemmy instances stores a copy of almost every post ever made. That's like 100GB x1000. With a DHT, the amount of space used on each user's device is on average the amount of posts one user makes x3, no more.
Look at the Zerotier vpn model. They have several instances hosted all over the world that the client app running on user devices initially contact. These instances are in essence federated even if they use a different term for it.
The instance then gives each client a list of peers and how to reach them, and the clients attempt to reach each other directly, bypassing the instance where possible.
Both models work together. There's no need for locking into one and ignoring the other. Use the best tool for the job at hand.
In my opinion federation is the better peer to peer / decentralized service. Power is not centralized, but everything can be run as efficiently as a centralized service.
There are plenty of dead torrents with no seeders. What happens when the post you want to see has no seeders? Most people don’t keep their device on 24/7 and how many people access on a mobile device whose OS doesn’t support this kind of access?
No, each user is a “peer”, in Lemmy they access content through the instances.
They are talking something more like IPFS.
I don’t really know much about IPFS, but I think a downside to peer to peer is the potential for content to disappear because someone turns off their computer or quits whatever application. I can’t be the only person to have a torrent stall at 80% because the rest isn’t available in the network.
I think this article by Alyssa Rosenzweig is important to consider. I think it does make some assumptions about the purpose of federating, but it does make one very important point that I think everyone in this space is ignoring: the internet was already fundamentally federated from the beginning, and look how that turned out.
It's for this reason that I believe a fediverse only survives due to a culture of keeping it alive, but I don't know that that culture will survive long term in a free market. It might be that the internet is just like the rest of the world: an ebb and flow of democratic and totalitarian states, history being forgotten, lessons being relearned the hard way. That might just be how the internet works now.