@cgiffard Yes… I disagree that that will actually be reliable or real, though. Thus small networks where you have relationship with the gatekeeper. In practice, a useful (used) decentralized system will be managed by knowledgeable gatekeepers anyway.
@cgiffard Hm. I don't believe you would be OK with it being small. :) The encryption is to verify that it really was you? But any place displaying it could claim you verified it. That you could prove you didn't could be meaningless.
@cgiffard I'm not forgetting those. They have huge costs for being distributed, and that's OK because they're used widely (thought Bittorrent is on a lower level of "widely"). Saturday I got seven E-mails that were sent 12 or more hrs earlier.
@cgiffard I like small communities, and am skeptical of media effects from mega social networks -- and I'm skeptical of small decentralized networks (because you're giving up a lot of benefits without gain).
@cgiffard I'm personally enjoying the idea of a common API, effectively, so a lot of footwork can be easily adopted. ADN and Twitter are a genre of social network, after all, that don't need much besides what they have.
@cgiffard It's not important to me that the data be decentralized, personally. For it to be useful, it has to be mainstreamed, IMO. Anyone can decentralize, and have, numerous times. It just hasn't mattered much.
@cgiffard to me, there's an idea to build a decentralized service, and there's an idea to have a service that is basically a centralized service with hooks to other major services… such that you have the ability to continue if one stops…