Decentralized Protocols as Alternatives to the Internet: Comparing IPFS and Secure Scuttlebutt

Основные понятия

The article explores two critical infrastructure proposals, IPFS and Secure Scuttlebutt, as alternatives to the current state of internet protocols, highlighting the political assumptions and debates underlying these technical enterprises.

Аннотация

The article examines two proposals for critical internet infrastructure as alternatives to the current state of internet protocols: IPFS (Interplanetary File System) and Secure Scuttlebutt (SSB).
IPFS:

IPFS aims to provide permanent availability of content by using a distributed hash table, BitSwap incentive mechanism, and immutable content addressing.
IPFS presents itself as a solution to the ephemerality of the web, with a discourse focused on technical features to ensure perpetual access to information.
In practice, IPFS faces challenges around content moderation, centralization of hosting services, and the tension between technical decentralization and economic centralization.
Secure Scuttlebutt (SSB):

SSB is a decentralized communication protocol based on "gossip" propagation, emphasizing offline availability and a social, rather than technical, approach.
SSB's discourse focuses on harmonizing technology, community, and society, presenting itself as a reflection of natural, virtual, and social environments.
SSB critiques the assumption of permanent global availability underlying contemporary internet, instead promoting a local-first approach centered on individual responsibility and autonomy.
The article compares these two protocols as examples of "protocological critique", highlighting how their technical approaches and discursive framings reflect different visions of how communication should be structured.

Статистика

"IPFS is similar to the Web, but IPFS could be seen as a single BitTorrent swarm, exchanging objects within one Git repository. In other words, IPFS provides a high through-put content-addressed block storage model, with content-addressed hyper links. This forms a generalized Merkle DAG, a data structure upon which one can build versioned file systems, blockchains, and even a Permanent Web"
"Every single file that could exist on IPFS has the potential to offend someone"
"If you don't pin your content to IPFS, it goes bye-bye. And if the server pinning your resources ever goes offline and no one else has it pinned, it's gone forever. That's why a market has opened up for services like Pinata, which aim to be permanent pinning services. So you still end up with a centralized business framework even if the technology itself is decentralized, in that, if you don't have the means to provide your own distributed infrastructure, you're going to have to pay someone who does."

Цитаты

"Scuttlebutt aims to harmonize four perspectives of life: Environment reflecting Technology reflecting Community reflecting Society.
We acknowledge the natural, the virtual, and the social environments. Our responsibility is to recognize which resources are abundant, which are sufficient, and adapt accordingly through efficiency"
"The discussions on development and tutorials are an essential part of our community and should not be obscured or minimized."

Ключевые выводы из

Critiques protocolaires d'Internet

by Pierre Depaz... в arxiv.org 04-04-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.02158.pdf

Дополнительные вопросы

How do the different technical approaches of IPFS and SSB reflect underlying cultural and political assumptions about the role of technology in society?

The technical approaches of IPFS and SSB reflect different underlying cultural and political assumptions about the role of technology in society. IPFS focuses on creating a decentralized and permanent web infrastructure, emphasizing the preservation and accessibility of information globally. This reflects a cultural belief in universal access to knowledge and a political stance against centralized control over information. On the other hand, SSB prioritizes local-first communication and offline availability, highlighting a cultural value of personal autonomy and community resilience. This approach challenges the assumption of constant online connectivity and questions the dominance of global networks in shaping communication dynamics. Overall, the technical designs of IPFS and SSB embody distinct cultural and political ideologies regarding the democratization of information and the decentralization of digital infrastructures.

What are the potential limitations or unintended consequences of the decentralization models proposed by IPFS and SSB, and how might they be addressed?

The decentralization models proposed by IPFS and SSB come with potential limitations and unintended consequences. For IPFS, the emphasis on permanent content storage raises concerns about the proliferation of illegal or harmful content that cannot be easily removed. This immutability feature may lead to ethical dilemmas regarding content moderation and accountability. To address this, IPFS could implement more robust governance mechanisms or content moderation protocols to ensure responsible use of the platform.
On the other hand, SSB's local-first approach may limit the scalability and reach of communication networks, especially in contexts where global connectivity is essential. The reliance on local networks for data synchronization could pose challenges in maintaining consistent communication across diverse geographical locations. To mitigate this limitation, SSB could explore hybrid models that combine local-first principles with mechanisms for global connectivity, ensuring a balance between resilience and scalability in communication infrastructures.

In what ways can the critiques of internet protocols offered by IPFS and SSB be extended to consider the broader social, economic, and environmental impacts of digital infrastructures?

The critiques of internet protocols offered by IPFS and SSB can be extended to consider the broader social, economic, and environmental impacts of digital infrastructures. By examining the cultural and political implications of decentralized technologies, such as IPFS and SSB, we can uncover deeper insights into power dynamics, information access, and community resilience in the digital age.
From a social perspective, these critiques can shed light on issues of digital inclusion, data ownership, and privacy rights, highlighting the importance of equitable access to technology and information. Economically, the decentralization models of IPFS and SSB may disrupt traditional business models and reshape value chains in the digital economy, prompting discussions on wealth distribution and economic empowerment. Environmentally, the sustainability of decentralized infrastructures in terms of energy consumption and carbon footprint could be evaluated to assess their ecological impact and promote eco-friendly technological solutions. Overall, extending the critiques of IPFS and SSB to broader societal contexts can provide a holistic understanding of the implications of digital infrastructures on various aspects of society.