-
@ Constant
2025-05-24 09:57:37Decentralization refers to control/power, and relates to censorship resistance. That is it, it is not more complicated then that. Resilience is a function of redundancy; a centralized censored system can have a redundant set-up and therefor be resilient.
Take Bitcoin; the blockchain is a central database, it is resilient because it has many redundant copies among a lot of different nodes. The message (txs and blocks) propagation is decentralized due to existence of a p2p network among these nodes, making the data distribution censorship resistant (hello op_return debate). But onchain transactions themselves are NOT p2p, they require a middlemen (a miner) because it is a central database, as opposed to something like lightning which is p2p. Peer to Peer says something about relative architectural hierarchical position/relation. P2P provides censorship resistance because it entails equal power relations, provided becoming a peer is permissionless. What makes onchain transactions censorship resistant is that mining is permissionless, and involves this open power struggle/game where competition results in a power distribution among players, meaning (hopefully) decentralization. The fact users rely on these middlemen is mitigated by this decentralization on the one hand, and temper-proofing via cryptographic signatures on the other, resulting in what we call trustlessness (or trust minimization for the autists in the room); we only rely on a miner to perform a job (including your tx into a block), but we don’t trust the miner to perform the job correctly, this we can verify ourselves.
This leads us to Nostr, because that last part is exactly what Nostr does as well. It uses cryptography to get tamper-proof messaging, which then allows you to use middle-men in a trust minimized way. The result is decentralization because in general terms, any middle man is as good as any other (same as with miners), and becoming such a middleman is permissionless(somewhat, mostly); which in turn leads to censorship resistance. It also allows for resilience because you are free to make things as redundant as you'd like.
Ergo, the crux is putting the cryptography central, making it the starting point of the system; decentralization then becomes an option due to trust minimization. The difference between Bitcoin an Nostr, is that Bitcoin maintains a global state/central ledger and needs this PoW/Nakamoto consensus fanfare; Nostr rests itself with local perspectives on 'the network'.
The problem with the Fediverse, is that it does not provide trust minimization in relation to the middlemen. Sure, there are a lot different servers, but you rely on a particular one (and the idea you could switch never really seemed to have materialized in a meaningful way). It also fails in permisionlessness because you rely on the association between servers, i.e. federation, to have meaningful access to the rest of the network. In other words, it is more a requirement of association than freedom of association; you have the freedom to be excommunicated.
The problem with ATproto is that is basically does not solve this dynamic; it only complicates it by pulling apart the components; identity and data, distribution and perspective are now separated, and supposedly you don’t rely on any particular one of these sub-component providers in the stack; but you do rely on all these different sub-component providers in the stack to play nice with each other. And this ‘playing nice’ is just the same old ‘requirement of association’ and ‘freedom of excommunication’ that looms at the horizon.
Yes, splitting up the responsibilities of identity, hosting and indexing is what is required to safe us from the platform hellscape which at this stage takes care of all three. But as it turns out, it was not a matter cutting those up into various (on paper) interchangeable middlemen. All that is required is putting cryptographic keys in the hands of the user; the tamperproofing takes care of the rest, simply by trust minimizing the middlemen we use. All the sudden it does not matter which middlemen we use, and no one is required to play nice; we lost the requirement of association, and gained freedom of association, which was the purpose of censorship resistance and therefor decentralization, to begin with.