Some centralized wolves among the centralized sheep

[agaskins]

Many on this list, while technically utilizing decentralized technology, are operating on a very centralized business model. I haven't checked the whole list, the first thing I checked in the 'cloud' category went to a commercial site that said 'create an account to get started', then I came across several more.

If one has to create an account on a corporate-centralized server, then it is no more 'decentralized' than google's gmail, which utilizes the 'decentralized SMTP protocol' but is of course quite the opposite of what this movement strives for.

Please beware of these wolves in sheep's fur! At the least, they should be under a category of 'Partially Decentralized Services', and that is giving them more than they deserve in my opinion.

That said, I appreciate this effort and I'm grateful that there exists (once again) a growing movement in this direction! And if you need help weeding the list I'd be glad to help!

[rossjones]

I'd definitely welcome a PR clarifying those that perhaps shouldn't be there, but I don't think it is always 100% clear cut.

Some though, just aren't clear - for example although Cozy asks for a signup, they do have https://docs.cozy.io/en/tutorials/selfhost-debian/ - I've updated it.

I did want to add metadata to each project in the form of badges which could have encapsulated this uncertainty, but it's a lot of work for one person.

[rossjones]

Just realised you might be talking about https://bitdust.io/ - it's a screenshot of the desktop application.

[tankred]

I use this small checklist before using a project

[ ] trust (Do I trust it? Which is subjective, and depends on opinions of people I trust)
[ ] open source (Is it open source? Or is it maybe only the client?)
[ ] export data (Can I export the data I put into it? In a machine readable format?)
[ ] infosec review (Is there an independent infosec review?)

[telamon]

I think this issue is only scraping the tip of iceberg.

If using the definition that a decentralized system has no central node and all nodes are equal,
then a true decentralized system has not yet not been achieved AFAIK.
(Even crypto-currencies stray towards centralization the moment their ledger outgrows the capacity of a handheld-device)

We have a lot of tools that attempt to approach decentralization and even some products that to some degree behave in a decentralized manner.
Like take git as an example, it is centralization/decentralization neutral;
It is capable of pushing commits regardless if the target repository is located on a central server or a random usb-stick.

I am very interested in such infrastructure-agnostic projects and I watch this repository because I believe there is value in sharing your efforts and results.
At least this repository serves as a brilliant list of which ideas have already been tested or are
currently being worked on.

But then as @agaskins observed, the list contains actors that use the term "decentralized" only as a means for marketing, which I think is sad.
In their defense I am afraid that not a single project listed in this repository is truly decentralized.
So in order to remove "obviously centeralized" ones in a fair way you would need to create some sensible scale of what level of partial decentralization is accepted.

But I frankly do not know how to accomplish that.
For what it's worth it is a lot easier to make a list of what we think "is not" decentralized rather than what is.

So here's my contribution to that list, the constraints might be a little bit extreme for some, but this is what i currently use to categorize projects:

1. If the project requires you to register, it is centralized
2. If the project does not function without an active internet-connection, it is centralized. (your node is less valued than remote node)
3. If the project is not licensed as AGPL then it is or will be centralized. (As opposed to open-source licenses, the restrictive share-alike clause in AGPL prevents any communicating actor from becoming a super-node using legal means)
4. If the project requires you to accept a EULA, it is centralized. (your node is valued less than vendor)

[andrewtj]

If the project is not licensed as AGPL then it is or will be centralized. (As opposed to open-source licenses, the restrictive share-alike clause in AGPL prevents any communicating actor from becoming a super-node using legal means)

Is that really true though? I don't believe AGPL can prevent clean room implementation of a protocol.

[Kyllingene]

If the project requires you to register, it is centralized

Do you ever make exceptions? For example, FunkWhale uses a system of interconnecting server nodes that anyone can host (the software is open-source), and is thus clearly decentralized (the power is in the hands of the people). However, you must register to join a "pod" (server) and use the service, and the pod owner may deny you. Of course, no-one is stopping you from making your own pod; but you do still register. Your definition excludes this service, despite its decentralized nature.

If the project does not function without an active internet-connection, it is centralized. (your node is less valued than remote node)

Define "active internet-connection". If you mean a traditional ISP service, then I agree (although I believe there might be exceptions). However, the router in your home is (theoretically) as complete an internet connection as Ziply or Verizon will ever be able to provide, minus the coverage. By this definition, the simple act of being connected to another device (that has the same capability) constitutes an internet connection, meaning that any project that has anything to do with multiple devices requires an internet connection. I am, however, going to assume you meant the former (ISP) definition.

[telamon]

@andrewtj No I think you're right, a license can't prevent a copy, It's thought nugget.

@Kyllingene Yep you figured it out, i meant the latter of course: "A decentralized network is a network without a super node"
Hence I follow this entire repository with a fond sense of humor. Peace! ✌️

[balupton]

The Icepick license and the Parity license may be of interest to those here. The guy behind them is Kyle Mitchell. He has a community here for those interested.

[telamon]

@balupton before this turns into a legal-cult comparison contest, the reason i mentioned AGPL is because it serves a greater purpose as a thought exercise.

Any time you have a "decentralized" idea, imagine what would happen if you release it under the AGPL terms.
If the project/idea can continue to survive and thrive without your interaction, then odds are you actually initiated something decentralized.

But beware, the moment you reach decentralization, the peers, the code and barely the name of the idea is yours.
They might remember you for a while, but eventually you'll be forgotten. Accept, abide, program, repeat 🙏

P.S. I wanted to offer kyle a cinnamonroll and give some feedback on his belief-system, but he said he was busy. 🤷‍♂️