|
|
|
|
|
|
by dmitriid
1527 days ago
|
|
|
> concerns about the centralized nature of such a storage solution CANNOT be launched by critics: It was their criticism of decentralized storage solutions that caused the shift towards standard trust-based storage solutions, and thus they cannot criticize the move towards the latter. Otherwise, their criticism is not out of technical concern, but out of personal opinion. This sounds like a rant devoid of meaning. Yes, there are centralized solutions. Yes, there are decentralized solutions. Yes, critics have full right to criticize both, because both have their failings. This has literally nothing to do with whatever ideological angle you're trying to force. |
|
|
> This sounds like a rant devoid of meaning.
> Yes, there are centralized solutions. Yes, there are decentralized solutions. Yes, critics have full right to criticize both, because both have their failings.
> This has literally nothing to do with whatever ideological angle you're trying to force.
The ideological angle in this case is: "N solutions have a mixture of good & bad, but at least one of them is required for system S to function. Critics that criticize N-1 of N solutions cannot criticize the usage of the Nth solution when that is the only other solution left, after catering to their desires for (1...N-1) of N solutions to not be used."