• lone_faerie
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      23 hours ago

      It’s 100% centralized, but with the ability to be decentralized. Sorta like Threads before they started federating

      • MangoPenguin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Sure, but until it actually gets used significantly in that way, we might as well just say it’s centralized.

      • sem
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        The “ability” to decentralize has costs that scale quadratically. So in every practical sense, it cannot be decentralized. At best it could have a few servers that participate.

        • Natanael@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          No, it doesn’t scale “quadratically”. That’s what going viral on Mastodon does to a small instance, not on bluesky. Pretty much everything scales linearly. The difference is certain components handle a larger fraction of the work (appview and relay).

          Both a bluesky appview and a Mastodon instance scales by the size of the userbase which it interacts with. Mastodon likes to imagine that the userbase will always be consistent, but it isn’t. Anything viewed by a large part of the whole Mastodon network forces the host to serve the entirety of the network and all its interactions. So does a bluesky appview, in just the same way, but they acknowledge this upfront.

          Meanwhile, you CAN host a bluesky PDS account host and have your traffic scale only by the rate of your users’ activity + number of relays you push these updates to. Going viral doesn’t kill your bandwidth.

    • Victor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      This is a little bit more black and white compared with the other responses. 🙈