There seem to be many types of decentralization, these are independent dimensions
- the data,
- pointers and indexes to the data,
- other metadata i.e. useful metadata like document schemas,
- the encryption keys and certificates,
- routes taken by data content across networks (P2P variations),
- routes taken by the pointing, indexing, metadata information,
- incentive topology ($ Corp, $hierarchic/MLM, $peer, mojo, volunteer...)
- capital structure (pooled/central, decentralized, or hierarch. steps)
- political and social rulemaking topology /hierarchy,
- actual technical control (actual sovereignty)
- content creation (added by Mitra)
It's amusing to consider different combinations. e.g what if the
data stays central but the indexes are distributed? Or what if
the economic incentives are only positive for centralization? how can
we make them positive for decentralization in a way that grows a
physical network that maximizes effective sovereignty at the
nodes etc. (if that is one's goal)
The number of permutations are fairly numerous considering that
decentralization has so many additional colors and flavors, and can
exist in separate universes or contexts like wireless networks, dialup BBS universes like FIDONET, as well as the cisco/telco IPV4 internet or the PSTN.
Too often on this list, messages assume a particular context. We need an organizing principle. That principle is, what result you're trying to accomplish. From: "Jeff Darcy" <jeff@****ypus.ro>
To: <p2p-hackers@***.org>
Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] steam?
List-Archive: <http://zgp.org/pipermail/p2p-hackers/>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 09:44:05 -0500
> All content distribution tools seem to
> fall into one of three general categories -
>
> a) Akamai
> b) BitTorrent
> c) Napster
I think that's way too simplistic, Bram. Where, for example, would Freenet
fit into that, or MNet? Neither could be considered a clone of BitTorrent,
which they preceded. I see a whole bunch of different differentiators here:
* Centralized vs. hierarchical vs. P2P
* Transient vs. permanent (a.k.a. communication vs. storage, with some
systems in between)
* Focus on security/anonymity vs. focus on performance
* Replication+redirection vs. multi-level caching
* Push vs. pull
* Consistent vs. inconsistent
* Block vs. file granularity.
Wes Felter presented a different taxonomy at the first O'Reilly P2P
conference (http://felter.org/wesley/p2p/one/P2PInfrastructure.html) but
even within its more restricted domain it also allows for many fully
legitimate permutations that can in no reasonable way be considered clones
of the three systems you mention.
I agree with you that it's very important to decide and remember what type
of system you're trying to build, according to these sorts of criteria, but
IMO treating it as a choice between members of a single (small) enumerated
set is too limiting.
Written by BINUDOG
$BINUDOG—the first-ever binaural dog token. Who knows, maybe you'll hear a beat in your ear next time you're watching a market chart rise.