This is a post valueing and criticizing the centralization focus trend put on acknowledgement for developing decentralized technologies.
P2P technologies rely in users that are active in the network to become servers of the network, this way the platform has the lesser point-of-failure of the central servers or administrators.
Nowadays there is a lot of P2P development focused in the blockchains (P2P networks focused on acknowledging interactivities). Cryptocurrencies exchanges are updated Stock Exchanges, but they are just a more seeable output of the decentralizing pole of things. Overall, there isn´t less use of legal tenders. Also, there is more pressence of subtle and macro energy focused on centralization (i.e. Bitcoin is a very old technology compared with XYZ but leads the CryptoMarket by far) and legal tenders. CryptoExchangers are thinking and talking a lot about the legal tenders, so giving them a lot of importance regardless of them trying to oppose them with arguments that any CryptoCoin is better than a legal tender, because he will anyway be subtly and macro believing the his-her CryptoCoin will be as better as more fungible will be with a legal tender (more «price» the Coin has).
Bitcoin is an old technology, and a centralized one within the decentralized world. Many people get to know P2P decentralization thanks to Bitcoin implementation. But by centralizing your hopes and doings for decentralization in bitcoin raising its marketprice you are leaving such decentralization intention. P2P acknowledgements features are centralizing the decentralizing world.
One resulting flaw here is that with proof-of-work blockchains (i.e. Bitcoin) rise an overloaded competition (with waste of energy and elitism). If the system needs 100, we only need 100, but we accept the competition between the 1000 because that is what assures us to reach the 100 (and so be maintained). But would you want to accept 1000000 or uncountables for maintaining such 100 need?
This is not only a waste a thermodynamic energy, one wonders here how much this greedy intentionalism is affecting the environtment ground, because everything we wish vibrates the mesh from below we live in above.
There are hundreds of developed p2p blockchained networks, all having the foundational stand of: «Tokenization secures the network«. But such «p2p tokenization» is given because of brute force (mining) while the tokenization is developed within the addings of contents within the networks. Too much focus on getting money by brute inputs don´t let you care about evolving more humanistic inputs. Brute maintenance is a need, we could have a x10 assurance of it, but the rest of worry should go into evolving better inputs further than the brute ones.
Nowadays, is worth for every good idea of a networkable value to have its p2p blockchain. We need to focus more on contents that should make our livings with materialities more sustainable for al, while enough but less on its fungibility or less with moneys. Competition for adding more loveliness in the form of structured content is worthier than competition for more brute force tech.
There are a few popular P2P tools for daily life, while there is an increasing ammount of P2P blockchains. And blockchains are P2P tools that will never probably feature a rich social network, because overrating acknowledgements needs brings a lot of coding load complications.
There are efforts in making blockchains scalable to get to feature whatever computing, but they are still attached to the dubious thought of: «I want a facebook in my wallet» (the wallet-as-a-network architecture thinking), instead of the more logical reasoning of: «p2p for a network, with an integrated multicryptocurrencies wallet in it«, altough the more popular architecture approach today is probably the chat-as-a-network (whatsupp, wechat, etc).
In the other hand, there is not a very ready to use p2p social network (more careless about acknowledgements) because there are not enough developers commited to do so (most of the heat is put on acknowledgment features…).
Why we dont have a rich p2p social network yet
Note: I don’t want to deprecate efforts like status or akasha projects within ethereum in favor of other more pure p2p based like holochain, secushare or retroshare. I just don’t get their technicallities well enough myself (and haven´t found anyone wanting to implement the flove standards there).
There are many geeks that have got rich with the cryptocurrencies. Also there are thousands of programmers into p2p blockchains, but not even a suffered dozen of people commited to develop an alternative to facebook in p2p.
What is really happening here is that we don’t care about p2p if there is not dollars-in-the-middle because have a comfortable life with the combination of (warning: sarcasm in):
I like Twitter more than Facebook. We don’t really need yet a better place for our free data to thrive, the giants will do the job of improving my networking options by developing more features for me-us. We just need to challenge legal tenders hegemony…
Other more «activists» could even say or believe that if money fail, we will have their tokens to be able to exchange things, without foreeseing that if classical money fails, possibly there won’t be internet, or people won’t exchange through the internet, or simply won’t trust referrals from tech tools that are non internet dependant. If central money would fail, we will either come back to a jungled society or to currencies that will be backed in real Goods, and not in any fiduciary chain from the pre-money and internet 1.0 crash.
The blockchains are a beautiful breakthru for letting anyone to choose which global currency (s)he is more comfortable with. We need blockchained currencies to exchange daily things with, while we haven’t developed economic alternatives (really smart contracts…) to make the stingy exchange not that much valueable in our lifes.
Exchange is the less rational evolutive option between all the posible ones for the transfer of the use of a thing (See it last at floves taxonomy). Apparently paradoxically, exchange being the lowest realm where to pump love from implies that Lovely exchanges should be the most sophisticated actions (becuase of their higher difficulty to achieve so).
So we need a p2p network that offers a certain usability where exchanging will be considered the lowest (lovely, acknowledged) action there. See flovecoin
We need curating (moderating) content to avoid sybil attacks and spamming in an environtment that is censorship resistant as any p2p tool by design is.
P2P Networks such as OpenBazaar propose to solve this problem with their own Ethereum-based (OB)Tokens manually distributed among trusted parties-persons. While that could be a decent patch (as moderated and premined tools like faircoin are), we can and have to keep thinking about better ways to «curate content» in P2P networks without having to come to the thought of: «Spammers won’t spam us because it will cost them too much money (in our tokens) to do so«. Some ideas:
-Register/Log in per invitation (looks centralizing, but a social graph could be enough)
-Do some task for registering (seeing this as slavery is a posh appeal to pitty fallacy)
-Curate affinities contents only (As in XS identities in RetroShare…)
-See only content that is curated up to certain ammount
-Watch x time a page, and then is validated as curation
My 2 cents, let’s keep the heat on about the free network we wish to have.