[PhaseMage]

Interesting that you describe TCP/IP as a decentralized protocol. I have the opposite opinion: That TCP/IP is the #1 forcing function for centralization in the world right now.

IP allows a maximum of 255 hops for any packet. This inherently restricts the topology of the Internet: As it stands, it can never be a world-wide decentralized mesh. Instead, you end up with large hubs and choke-points. The IP addressing scheme also makes it very difficult to have a mesh: IP addresses are assigned hierarchically. The name "Inter-Net" describes the problem directly: The Internet isn't a global network that just anyone can contribute or connect to; instead, the Internet is just a protocol for inter-connecting the world's centrally owned and operated networks. With the IP Internet forced topology, Economies-of-Scale make massive centralized services cheaper than distributed services (even if similarly massive). The obvious result: Comcast is your only ISP at home.

Disclosure: I've been working in my spare time for years on a solution, and I think an isochronous source-routed stream-based protocol is the only solution. I've got a proposed spec at IsoGrid.org

[zmanian]

Have you seen http://www.scion-architecture.net/?

TCP/IP and Ethernet were decentralized alternatives both from a design and IP licensing point of view. But the unresolved technical debt at the transport layer is major centralizing force on the Internet right now.

[PhaseMage]

I hadn't seen SCION, but just read through the FAQ and skimmed some of the Apr 2016 whitepaper. It doesn't appear to address centralization. For example from their literature: "SCION only assumes that a few top-tier ISPs in the isolation domain are trusted..." Sounds like it's trying to solve many problems, but centralization isn't one of them.

I wish them well, it's good to have lots of people working on this from all angles.