this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2025
726 points (95.7% liked)

Technology

69109 readers
2878 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] einkorn@feddit.org 260 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Bluesky, the decentralized social network [...]

Were only one instance exist or did I miss something?

[–] InfiniteHench@lemmy.world 166 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

As I understand it, the protocol has the ability to decentralize built in. But the technical requirements are prohibitively high to the point only large businesses or corps could afford to do it. I also believe (someone correct me) the company hasn’t switched on the functionality yet.

[–] Drunemeton@lemmy.world 66 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Last heard (a few months ago) the cost is in storage. The protocol isn’t too complicated now, but it generates a shit ton of data, and IIRC you need a minimum of 3 copies.

[–] mac@lemm.ee 24 points 3 days ago

Storage is cheap whwn it comes to webhosting and 3 replicas is honestly not much when it comes to enterprise standards. I think cloud storage providers like backblaze keep something like 9 copies of data across different mediums

[–] noodlejetski@lemm.ee 38 points 3 days ago (2 children)

my mom has always told me that I had the potential to work at NASA. but the requirements are prohibitively high

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago

I believe in you!

[–] mPony@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

all you need is a work ethic and a time machine

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 4 points 2 days ago

Maybe you remember PDS federation not being open for a while, but it's open now.

Running a public appview can be very expensive, but they're working on making it cheaper to run one with a limited scope.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The biggest thing is that you need to be manually authorized by them for federation. They will only ever federate with servers that arent serious enough competition to lead to democratization of the overall network.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, PDS federation is fully open now.

They're also actively supporting development of 3rd party appviews and relays.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The power dynamic is still 1000000:1 they can do whatever they want and you will have to follow. If they defederate you, there is no value in your self hosted instance.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Partially - something running independent infrastructure like Whitewind (blogging on atproto) will still work just like before (it's easier for them to run it independently because you don't need a full network view, just pull in the posts from the user's PDS for standalone display)

When the work to make appviews easier to run makes it more practical this will be less of a risk.

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 57 points 3 days ago (2 children)
[–] lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 2 days ago

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

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I can't speak to how traffic costs and mastodon works, but this article explains how having multiple blue skies federating with each other scales quadratically. https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/ it is very thorough.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

In fact, it is worse than the storage requirements, because the message delivery requirements become quadratic at the scale of full decentralization: to send a message to one user is to send a message to all. Rather than writing one letter, a copy of that letter must be made and delivered to every person on earth

That's written assuming the edge case of EVERYBODY running a full relay and appview, and that's not per-node scaling cost but global scaling cost.

Because they don't scale like that, global cost is geometric instead (for every full relay and appview, there's one full copy with linear scaling to network activity), and each server only handles the cost for serving their own users' activity (plus firehose/jetstream subscription & filtering for those who need it)

For Mastodon instance costs, try ask the former maintainers of https://botsin.space/

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 10 hours ago

I'm sad that bots in space had to spin down, but there are still bots on Mastodon. One server quitting didn't take everything down.

The part where if a mastodon post gets popular, it has to serve that to everyone makes sense because it's kind of like a website. Maybe there could be a CDN like Cloudflare that a mastodon server could use to cache responses?

The part about Bluesky that doesn't sound good to me is "to send a message to one user is to send it to all". Wouldn't this be crazy with even 100 servers for 10000 users, vs 2 servers with 5000 each? Not sure how the math works but it doesn't look good if they have to duplicate so much traffic.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

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

[–] Pirata@lemm.ee 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think their initial selling point was that Eventually©®™ Bluesky would federate with the rest of the Fediverse.

Is anybody really surprised that a social media corporation didn't make it their utmost priority to allow their userbase to connect out of their proprietary platform?

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They never said they'd do so natively with other protocols - but they support Bridgy, so you already can do that.

[–] Pirata@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Interesting how other instances of the fediverse have no such restrictions. It's almost as if they want to make it as difficult as possible so that people just don't federate.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 2 days ago

There's literally no restrictions other than simple rate limiting, which you can ask for exceptions for.

I don't know a Mastodon/lemmy server which wouldn't rate limit new peers

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 1 points 1 day ago

I dont see this in the article.

[–] massi1008@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You can easily host your own instance with a simple docker stack.

I dont know of any public instances except the main but I also havent searched.

[–] BackwardsUntoDawn@lemm.ee 3 points 2 days ago

you can host your own PDS, but everyone is still using the same appview