Search Mailing List Archives

Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] Decentralization

Lluís Batlle i Rossell viric at
Tue Feb 7 01:56:39 PST 2017

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

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
> @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
> @dontTag
> -- 
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at companys at

(Escriu-me xifrat si saps PGP / Write ciphered if you know PGP)
PGP key D4831A8A -

More information about the liberationtech mailing list