Currently not, because it’s not de-facto decentralized. There would need to be multiple relays, managed by different organizations, AND multiple app views, also managed by different orgs, for me to consider it such.
The non-existence of de facto decentralization indicates that the ecosystem doesn’t actually promote decentralization, even though it technically allows for it.
Yeah from my understanding they call it decentralized but they put it through a centralized one they control through there protocol to verify content for everyone to see, so not so decentralized in the whole of everything.
Well, you can theoretically make a second app-view “instance”, call it “Greenearth” or something, and have different policies than Bluesky on how to verify or select content. But until someone actually does so, it’s not really decentralized. I’m not sure what’s stopping people from doing so, but it’s been a while, so I assume there must be some roadblock.
There’s also the issue of how Blueky itself was depicted as the decentralized network - when it’s more akin to a single instance, instead.
It’s designed so other relays need to handle every message sent on all of bluesky, so server costs would be way too high for most people. Like car prices for minimal bluesky relay setup, and way more if you want to actually store all the messages you’re processing.
That’s monthly right? It’s a slight exageration, but that’s close to low end used car payments. And from what I understand it’ll go up as bluesky gets more popular, and the more relays there are.
Currently not, because it’s not de-facto decentralized. There would need to be multiple relays, managed by different organizations, AND multiple app views, also managed by different orgs, for me to consider it such.
The non-existence of de facto decentralization indicates that the ecosystem doesn’t actually promote decentralization, even though it technically allows for it.
Yeah from my understanding they call it decentralized but they put it through a centralized one they control through there protocol to verify content for everyone to see, so not so decentralized in the whole of everything.
Well, you can theoretically make a second app-view “instance”, call it “Greenearth” or something, and have different policies than Bluesky on how to verify or select content. But until someone actually does so, it’s not really decentralized. I’m not sure what’s stopping people from doing so, but it’s been a while, so I assume there must be some roadblock.
There’s also the issue of how Blueky itself was depicted as the decentralized network - when it’s more akin to a single instance, instead.
It’s designed so other relays need to handle every message sent on all of bluesky, so server costs would be way too high for most people. Like car prices for minimal bluesky relay setup, and way more if you want to actually store all the messages you’re processing.
@underscores @lily33 There have been multiple people testing this just this week, and it’s more like ~$200 price level than a car price 🙃
https://bsky.app/profile/bad-example.com/post/3loe7iy2gdc2c
That’s monthly right? It’s a slight exageration, but that’s close to low end used car payments. And from what I understand it’ll go up as bluesky gets more popular, and the more relays there are.
@underscores Yeah. But doable for basically any company/org or an enthusiast with money to spare.
@underscores @lily33 https://bsky.app/profile/futur.blue/post/3lnt3faeeek2t