[NoraCodes]

Unless I misunderstand, this is federated - each instance stores data related to its user, and fetches from other instances the data it's interested in (from other users the user is following.)

It also doesn't do much to address the reasons users in federated systems tend to congregate around large(r) servers, like discoverability and reliability.

It's a neat PoC but I think the communication needs some work.

[mhluongo]

When the federation is per-user, that's typically called "peer-to-peer" rather than federated...?

[teawrecks]

Also, git doesn't work p2p, it uses centralized servers. If i understand correctly, the only real difference between Twitter and this is that you have your data downloaded, so switching to a new platform is a matter of adding a new remote and pushing it there.

[adastra22]

Git was designed from the beginning to be used p2p. It’s how the Linux kernel development is done.

[gtop3]

My understanding of this implementation is you can use arbitrary git urls to follow. That could point to any process serving data. P2P is 100% possible.

It would be smart to use a personal domain for the git url you give your followers, so you can update the hosting location without causing any disruption.

[jayd16]

You can certainly work with git in a p2p fashion.

[astrobe_]

I'm pretty sure git-daemon does work p2p, but maybe that's a different p2p you have in mind.

[jayd16]

If its based on git then more than likely, copies can be made and shared separate from the user instance. Users own their signature so changes cannot be forged but valid data can be proxied and cached. User data is fully portable from one vendor to the next.

Would you call git federated or decentralized?

[NoraCodes]

So far as I understand, Git is both federated and decentralized - but I could easily be misunderstanding the definition of "federated" in this context.