Note that I said: Not single points of failure, but a few major
(AWS, GCP, Azure, Cloudflare) points of failure.
And I most certainly didn't say or imply that such failures would "take down the internet." Rather, I said: Take any one or more of these down and there are
major disruptions in commerce, connectivity and
communications.
That's very different from what you appear to think I said.>Because it's convenient. Decentralization has a constant cost. Centralization benefits from economics of scale. But there are costs to that centralization too. Not measured in dollars, but in freedom, creativity and choice. >Peer-to-peer solutions work fine, and you don't need multi gigabit synchronous links for that. Do they? If that were the case, we wouldn't have these behemoth tech corporations. Decentralized solutions exist, but aren't currently viable for a variety of reasons. I chose to pick on asymmetric network links (the asymmetric part is the important bit, not necessarily total bandwidth, although that's important too) as a blocker to decentralization. Feel free to disagree, but decentralization needs to be about more than just distributed block chains and services hosted on centralized server plantations. Edit: Fixed usage: Asymmetric, not asynchronous. Sorry, still drinking coffee here. |