Mastodon Feed
Boosted by glyph ("Glyph"):
cwebber@social.coop ("Christine Lemmer-Webber") wrote:
This is interesting. In my blogposts analyzing ATproto I had compared the shared heap vs message passing from a CS perspective
https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/
https://dustycloud.org/blog/re-re-bluesky-decentralization/Ian Preston of Peergos did the actual formal mathematical proof of the incentive structure: https://peergos.net/secret/z59vuwzfFDp45jmsA6Wj2jc9hemCjB4JJHB81iosJsA9GAVRtkbrqBs/1024927538#%7B%22app%22:%22markup%22%2c%22path%22:%22ianopolous/docs%22%2c%22args%22:%7B%22filename%22:%22social-scaling.note%22%7D%2c%22writable%22:false%2c%22secretLink%22:true%2c%22linkpassword%22:%22UfAQURKSTTmM%22%2c%22open%22:true%7D
> It is interesting that this is independent of N. Let's say you have 1000 servers, and 1000 followers per user. Then the shared heap model uses about the same network bandwidth. With a small number of servers SH can be better, with many servers AP is better.
> The conclusion is that the shared-heap model builds in a structural incentive to keep M small, and thus has a natural centralizing force. Conversely there is an incentive in AP to keep F small.
Ie, there is a mathematical incentive in ATproto to only have a few large players.