- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 11:46:54 +0200
- To: evan <anarchogeek@gmail.com>
- Cc: Marcus Rohrmoser <me+swicg@mro.name>, public-swicg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJ8jyGruyt+xH43YYji2XhA+n2cJ32RwauWgdc8AJaxJA@mail.gmail.com>
út 9. 5. 2023 v 12:33 odesílatel evan <anarchogeek@gmail.com> napsal: > Hi folks, > > I've been around forever, but only recently got back on this list. I hope > people don't mind me reposting something I wrote yesterday about this very > topic. > > So Fiatjaf posted a blog post about bluesky that ruffled some feathers: > https://fiatjaf.com/ab1127fb.html > > This triggered a long skeet stream reply from bluesky developer Paul > Frazee: https://staging.bsky.app/profile/pfrazee.com/post/3jv72j3fp6g2r > (you need to be on bluesky to read it) > > This then caused me to write up some thoughts: > > The world of decentralized protocols is gaining momentum, and it's > exciting to see projects like Nostr and Bluesky at the forefront. Many of > us have dedicated years to developing these protocols, and now they're > capturing global interest. I've been tracking various decentralized social > media protocols for a long time, and if you're interested, you can find my > comprehensive database of open social media protocol projects here: > https://airtable.com/shri7e7EHoTi0cEjO > > Nostr, at_protocol, and other projects take inspiration from Secure > Scuttlebutt, which I had the pleasure of working on alongside talented > individuals like @pfrazee and @jay. Nostr is a slightly modified version of > Scuttlebutt, while at_protocol represents a more significant reimagining. > At_protocol borrows ideas from the IPFS ecosystem and W3C DID standards, > while Nostr incorporates concepts from Bitcoin technology (not a blockchain > or cryptocurrency project). Both projects have received substantial support > from Jack Dorsey, who funds them but doesn't control their direction. > > Nostr began as a humble side project, growing organically as developers > adopted it. In contrast, Bluesky started with significant press and a > high-profile search for a team lead, taking years to evolve from an idea to > a funded project. Bluesky's community experienced challenges that led to a > split, and the original community renamed itself > https://dsocialcommons.org/. Nostr, on the other hand, never encountered > such issues, with developers contributing to the project independently. > > The two projects represent different approaches to open source > development: the cathedral model (Bluesky) and the bazaar model (Nostr). > Both have seen success, but I must express my disappointment with Bluesky's > choice to follow the cathedral model. Despite my frustration, I have great > admiration for the team behind Bluesky and the work they're doing. However, > Bluesky employees maintain full control over the at_protocol, leaving > little room for external contributors. > > In contrast, Nostr provides an open platform for contributions, enabling > me to create an app (nos.social) and write specifications that are openly > debated: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/pull/457. Bluesky's code > is indeed open source, but their development process is not. This is > reminiscent of how Safari's WebKit or Android operate as open source > projects without truly embracing the open source development methodology. > > Recently, I expressed concerns about Bluesky as it currently operates as a > single unified network. Friends advised me to take a step back and give the > team time. I experimented with their Indigo PDS server and found it > promising. I believe that the at_protocol will eventually become an open, > multi-server protocol. The people behind Bluesky have a long history of > working on open protocols and are not developing this technology to create > a new, closed ecosystem. > > On a personal note, I feel a stronger social connection to Bluesky's early > adopter community but appreciate Nostr's openness for contributions. I > could potentially create an at_protocol client, but making substantial > contributions to the Bluesky protocol seems reserved for employees and > select advisors. Therefore, I choose to invest my time and effort in open > projects. I firmly believe in Conway's law, which states that the structure > of the organization building a technology will shape the technology itself. > > I believe @fiatjaf might be overly critical of Bluesky. He had the luxury > of working in obscurity without the pressure of media attention while > figuring things out. In contrast, Bluesky faces high expectations and the > responsibility to "replace Twitter." The stress that the Bluesky team > endures while trying to develop their project under the watchful eyes of > many likely contributed to their adoption of the cathedral model of open > source. I empathize with the challenges they face in this environment. > > Much of the internet was built using the bazaar model, consisting of small > pieces loosely joined. This approach gave us the web and numerous other > systems we use today. Bluesky's design-driven model is more meticulously > architected, but it reminds me of Java and XML (no offense intended). > > I believe that these networks can interoperate. I already communicate > between the fediverse and Nostr daily, and while it's not perfect, it > mostly works. I'm optimistic that we'll achieve similar interoperability > with at_protocol once the system becomes more open. It is essential to > recognize the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches and to appreciate > the incredible work and progress made in both projects. As the world of > decentralized protocols continues to grow, I remain hopeful for a future > that embraces collaboration and openness. > Great video from Rabble here (packed with info): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIwBDvkkEnQ > > -rabble > > -- > evan.henshaw-plath.com - @rabble <https://twitter.com/rabble/> > schedule calls: calendly.com/rabble > > > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 9:31 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> út 9. 5. 2023 v 11:26 odesílatel Marcus Rohrmoser <me+swicg@mro.name> >> napsal: >> >>> On 30 Apr 2023, at 21:22, Bob Wyman wrote: >>> >>> > who it is that decides the rules (for what will or will not be seen). >>> >>> If the decision-maker can actually be held accountable per case, I am >>> all with you. >>> >>> However, I see such rarely. >>> >>> Usually machine executed rules result in covered up or even dissolved >>> responsibilities that you can't realistically hold anybody accountable for >>> or appeal to. >>> >>> In the end it's all about agency, accountability, reliability and trust. >>> We have to check against those values over and over again and not accept >>> regress. >>> >> >> Unfortunately BlueSky have had a bit of a PR disaster and then a >> following "skeet" (sky-tweet) stream. >> >> Jack Dorsey, founder of bluesky, made a post yesterday, which linked to >> an article entitled "BlueSky is a scam" >> >> https://fiatjaf.com/ab1127fb.html >> >> While quite a harsh critique, the article has technical merit. >> >> The gist of it is that bluesky was created to be an open system, but is >> far too closed, right now. >> >> It could be turned around, but I think they need to act, and open source >> their app ASAP. And perhaps get in some new people with a more open >> mentality. >> >> >>> >>> /Marcus >>> >>>
Received on Wednesday, 10 May 2023 09:47:11 UTC