Blaze (he/him) @ Blaze @feddit.org

Other accounts:

---

Read more

Posts

99

Comments

2,204

Joined

11 mo. ago

I got the same criticism about a similar graph a while ago. Numbers are on the left, people can clearly see how big of a change the graph shows, and I have no way to present the graph differently as it's straight from the website, but people still want to argue about it

The rule is

Discussions of overt political or agitation nature belong elsewhere

If you look at posts like this one (https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/35498857?scrollToComments=true) they were allowed as they were more about the real life aspects of politics rather than “rage inducing news bait”, one of the mods commented as such.

Seems like a "US politics" question, which is forbidden by the rules

Feel free to crosspost to !AskUSA@discuss.online

Sort by Controversial

⚽

I just skimmed through it. Damn, and people say that the Fediverse concept of instances is confusing 😄

Let's keep it short: once people will be able to register on a version of the platform (whatever piece of the PDS, DID, Relay that means) managed by other people then Bluesky, than trust towards ATProto will be higher.

As of now, it's very low.

Also, see the issue of the ATProto scalability in another comment: https://feddit.org/post/6858224/4156121

!loops@midwest.social

There's no karma on Lemmy

I'm not sure if people are pedantic or sarcastic at this point

Thank you for this, very interesting. I skimmed through it

But we aren't actually running networks of 26 users. We are running networks of millions of users. What would happen if we had a million self-hosted users and five new users were added to the network? Zooming out, once again, the message passing system simply has five new messages sent. Under the public shared heap model, it is 10,000,025 new messages sent! For adding five new self-hosted users! (And that's even just with our simplified model of only sending one message per day per user!)

Maybe this sounds silly, if you're a Bluesky enthusiast. I could hear you saying: well Christine, we really aren't planning on everyone self hosting. Yes, but how many nodes can participate in the system at all? The fediverse currently hosts around 27,000 servers (many more users, but let's focus on servers). Adding just 5 more servers would be a blip in terms of the affect on the network. Adding 5 more servers to an ATProto ecosystem with that many fully participating nodes would be an exhausting number of additional messages sent on the network. ATProto does not scale wide: it's a liability to add more fully participating nodes onto the network. Meaningfully self-hosting ATProto is a risk to the ATProto network, there is active reason to disincentivize it for those already participating. But it's not just that. Spreading things around so that more full Bluesky-like nodes are present is something server operators will have to come to discourage if they don't want their already existing high hosting costs to not skyrocket.

Where are the relay and PDS not operated by Bluesky that people can use to register today?

Thanks for sharing!

Well put, thanks

I still don't get how they want to evidence that as there's still no relay today not operated by Bluesky where people can register.

A few people have mentioned experimenting with self hosting a relay in the other thread, but that still seems like early experimenting due to the lack of relays with open registrations

There is one aspect of this I feel mixed about: I don't want folks to trust Bluesky, or believe in atproto, just because of the people on the team. Or because of our track record to date. Teams and individuals change over time, and we mean it seriously when we say "the company is a future adversary". The bar we are shooting for is to convince people that atproto is legitimate and useful even if Bluesky and the team adopt the worst of intentions. We have a lot of work to earn that kind of trust in the protocol, but it will be all the more meaningful if the goalposts don't move.

At least they acknowledge that.

Good mindset :)

The likely answer to this is that there will always have to be a large corporation at the heart of Bluesky/ATProto, and the network will have to rely on that corporation to do the work of abuse mitigation, particularly in terms of illegal content and spam. This may be a good enough solution for Bluesky’s purposes, but on the economics alone it’s going to be a centralized system that relies on trusting centralized authorities.

https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/

This thread (and others in that post) might interest you: https://communick.news/post/2320430/4138857

https://archive.ph/YtA25

Monthly active users increased by 43% between 13 and 14 January: https://pixelfed.fediverse.observer/dailystats

Fediverse blueballing