Presumably to stop credential reuse attacks on Bluesky itself?
Bluesky is one instance and they should enforce security on that instance. If you use a previously burnt ID, they have no way to tell it's you (indeed that's the whole point!)
I've done some work in the DID space. Not really a fan, and the space is full of half working implementations like this post documents.
But this particular criticism seems unfounded.
I really like the ActivityPub approach more. There, if a domain changes hands, so potentially do all accounts associated with it. An account can be permanently deleted by sending a Delete{Person} activity to the network, but that doesn't prevent an account with the same username from being created again.
We should only build peer to peer social protocols.
Websites and communities should simply sample from the swarm and make it easy for non-technical users to post and consume. They should be optional and not central points of failure (or control).
{Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, Discord} should work like {Email, BitTorrent, PGP}.
Bluesky and Mastodon are the wrong architecture.
The web, fancy javascript UI/UX, and microservices shouldn't be the focus. The protocol should be the focus.
A fully distributed protocol would dictate the solution to this exact problem.
Obviously, it’s early days, and hopefully there is even more experimentation in the p2p space. But atproto architecture is a very fair experiment in this space. I can store my data on my own server, use a client app I wrote, subscribe to a specific aggregation/feed service I prefer, use the moderation list I want… all while still being connected to the larger protocol & network. It’s pretty neat.
Unfortunately that means the implementation needs to reach all the way into the network layer.
What do you think is wrong about Mastodon? Genuinely curious because I also am super skeptical that ATProto brings anything that we really need.
If you make everything explicitly transactional, you will be left with only people trying to make a profit.
There are so many heuristics and models you can use to filter.
You can run your own ingestion algorithms, and one of the things you can do is set up inbound rules that incorporate micro transactions.
We have to build a lot of infrastructure to make this work, but it seems ideal for a world full of agents and autonomous systems acting on our behalf.
And who besides a spammer would pay more than $0 to have their message read by you? If I wrote a blog post about vulnerabilities of blockchains, or how I ran Doom on a pregnancy test, and you don't read it because I'm not paying you, you're losing value, not me. You guarantee an inbox of only spam — but at least you get paid for it.
If someone wants me to ingest something novel from far outside my network, one way to gain reputation might be to pay a microtransaction fee. I'd be free to choose to set that up as a part of my ingestion algorithm. Or maybe my peers do it, and if they "upvote" the content, I see it.
If my peers start acting poorly and sending spam, I can flag disinterest and my algorithm can naturally start deboosting that part of the network.
With such systems-level control, we should be able to build really excellent tooling, optimization, and statistical monitoring.
Also, since all publications are digitally signed, your content wouldn't have to be routed to me through your node at all. You could in fact never connect to the swarm and I could still read your content if you publish it to a peer that has distribution.
According to whom? It's their personal website, they're allowed to place value on whatever they want.
There is a world of difference between "I prefer x" and criticising something while asserting "everyone should do x (because I prefer x)".
Interesting idea, let's see if they confirm they were talking facts. I'll be very surprised.
I'm the worst person to take issue with this. This has been my biggest pet peeve for the longest time as well. Right until my frame of mind flipped randomly, and I recognized that by getting upset over blatantly subjective matters being discussed with zero cushioning like this, I'm doing little more than intentionally misreading the other person, and upsetting myself on purpose.
You're reacting to the smoke, not the fire. For example, this may have very well been a perfectly cromulent alternative reply:
> Sounds subjective, and indeed, I disagree. Not a fan of dogma like this anyhow.
> getting upset over blatantly subjective matters being discussed with zero cushioning like this, then I'm doing little more than intentionally misreading the other person until I upset myself. You're reacting to the smoke, not the fire.
It's not about cushioning. They are explicitly criticising the website ("pity", "forgot to take basic principles into account"), and saying broadly that everyone should do X, where X is their own preference. That is the fire. That will invariably rub people the wrong way. It is inherently not an amicable way to communicate about differences in design opinions.
That's not to say you can't give critical feedback. "I'm not a fan of the font, I prefer fonts that are easier to read" would be perfectly reasonable. It's specifically the assertion that there is a way that things ought to be done, as though there are not trade-offs depending upon what each person values but rather one objectively superior way, that causes friction.
I do think that did:plc provides more pragmatic freedom and control than did:web for most folks, though the calculus might be different for institutions or individuals with a long-term commitment to running their own network services. But did:web should be a functional alternative on principle.
I'm glad that the PDS was easy to get up and running, and that the author was able to find a supportive community on discord.
Because of your blog post I went through the process of setting up a did:web account myself this afternoon, and it was painful. Eg, I found a bug in our Go SDK causing that "deactivated" error (https://github.com/bluesky-social/indigo/pull/1281). I kept notes and will try to get out a blog post and update to 'goat' soon.
We've also been making progress on the architecture and governance of the PLC system. I don't know if those will assuage all concerns with that system immediately, but I do think they are meaningful steps in reducing operational dependency on Bluesky PBC.
This article does give me the impression that I should make and use more test accounts than I currently do when mucking around with ATProto/Bluesky.
Microblogs are fun, and very often I can't justify a whole blog post, but I have seen that others just post their thoughts intermingled and it makes me wonder if perhaps that is what I should do. There's not that much utility to the wide audience anyway. Talking to people who understand you is much nicer anyway.
I wouldn't be surprised if half of all blockchains were vulnerable to some kind of trivial double–spend attack because it's not possible that all the complexity has eyes on it.
Edit: you're supposed to download a 2GB JSON file containing the state as of the last migration.
The normal way to set up most blockchain nodes these days is to rsync someone else's node's working directory. Obviously this is worthless as far as a decentralised and trustless system goes.
Honestly, this is making me go further in the other direction, can we just do "twitter but owned by a trust" or something?
Working outside of did:plc is a choice - this project is on the very ragged, least baked edge of Atmosphere development.
What you're saying is: working outside of centralization is a choice. did:plc is a centralized database controlled by Bluesky.
Bluesky talks a big game about decentralization when it's extremely centralized. Everyone uses the centralized did:plc because it's the one way to really make it function. Until very recently, everyone used the centralized Bluesky AppView - and even now, well over 99% do. Bluesky will say things like "the protocol is locked open", but Bluesky could decide to shut off their firehose at anytime (leaving third parties cut off) and could decide to stop taking incoming data from third parties (leaving anyone on non-Bluesky servers cut off from basically everyone).
In a lot of ways, Bluesky is more like Twitter a decade or so ago. It offers APIs that third parties can use to build off of - but at any time, Bluesky could shut down those APIs. Back then, you could read the Twitter firehose and store the tweets and create your own app view with your own front-end if you wanted. Tweets would need to be sent to the Twitter APIs, but that's not really different than your third-party PDS server sending them to Bluesky if you want anyone else to read them.
You aren't open if someone controls the vast majority of a system because at any time they can decide "why are we doing this open thing? we could probably force the <1% of people elsewhere to migrate to our service if we cut off interoperability." Google Talk (GChat) offered XMPP federation and a lot of people bought into the platform because it was open. At some point, Google realized that the promise of openness had served its purpose and closed it off.
And it's important to think about the long-run here. Twitter was that benevolent dictator for a long time. Bluesky is still early and looking to grow - when they want people building off their system, giving them engagement, ideas, and designs they can copy. We're around year-5 of Bluesky. A decade from now after Bluesky builds its popularity on the back of "we're open and decentralized" while making decentralization extremely difficult, will that change? If Bluesky gets to a few hundred million users and then a third party starts looking like a potential threat, maybe they'll cut that off before they have genuine competition.
Maybe that won't happen with Bluesky. Maybe their investors won't care about the potential for a pay day. But if they have control (either through centralization like did:plc or by controlling the vast majority of the network), there will always be the potential for them to break interoperability. If they start monetizing Bluesky, why should they keep hosting, processing, and serving all that data for third party clients they can't monetize? Why shouldn't they stop federating with third parties before a third party becomes competition?
Meanwhile I lost my Mastodon account history because I moved once, couldn't interact with half the network or apps because I was on a non-Mastodon codebase instance, lost my account again because I stopped paying for access to the instance I was on, all classic signs of centralisation.
> all classic signs of centralisation.
> I lost my Mastodon account history because I moved once
> couldn't interact with half the network or apps because I was on a non-Mastodon codebase instance
> lost my account again because I stopped paying for access to the instance I was on
On Mastodon, if something goes wrong, nobody can cut you off the network entirely. On Bluesky, the author deleted an empty test account and is now blacklisted network-wide until Bluesky support decides to help. That is a classic sign of centralization.
The posts might exist, but they aren't associated with me. Why not? Because I was locked into somewhere and unable to vote with my feet and go elsewhere.
Maybe I stopped paying because the instance owner enforced sanctions against my country? Why should I lose my identity because of that?
> Independent implementations having compatibility issues is what happens when there's no central authority enforcing conformance. Frustrating, yes, but it's a symptom of decentralization.
Compatibility issues means lock-in to instances under individual control. Shared protocols means lock-in to a protocol, but ultimately freedom to move. We know that open protocols trumps opt-in collaboration by private entities for freedom.
> You could host your own instance, and nobody but yourself can revoke your access.
See also: instances not federating with other instances that are too small. You technically can, but in practice it goes nowhere.
> On Mastodon, if something goes wrong, nobody can cut you off the network entirely.
Bluesky is not perfect, but where it's approaching full decentralisation quickly on a solid foundation, ActivityPub has become the Mastodon show, and is less a decentralised social network, and more a federated set of centralised services with little accountability to users. You can't move, you can't control the content you see, you can't even search. It's a reversion to the days of 14 year olds drunk on power as a mod on a phpbb forum, or the Reddit mods of today.
Just expose the same interface Mastodon does and you'll be fine. Noting that almost nothing cares about the exact URLs you use, except for webfinger, but does care about the domain being the same as the right side of the @ sign.
The community is working on actually decentralising the network now that things mostly "just work" (assuming you are using did:plc/generally a happy path user).
- Building out PDS communities that are trusted takes time and nowadays there's a few outside of bluesky PBC (one or two big ones and a bunch of smaller ones). People are eager to move off because a lot of users really really don't like bluesky PBC leadership but it's a matter of waiting for these third party communities to reach critical mass.
- Relay infra is already pretty much decentralised. Lots of people still rely on the main relay but it's trivial to use a third party relay and there's more of them than you can count.
- There are a lot of really high quality third party clients and afaict a lot of users do actually use third party clients but there's basically no metric for tracking these stats.
- Appviews are expensive currently and there's work on making them easier to host but there's already one "full" alternative appview for bluesky.
- There are a lot non-bluesky apps/services that are genuinely high quality experiences and they are gaining their own communities.
The main technical barrier to true decentralisation outside of improving UX is introducing other did:methods and/or spreading trust of did:plc across the community (ex: clustered via raft or paxos across major operators) but there's just not a reason to pursue this over the other fires that need fighting in the ecosystem right now (and keeping did diversity low reduces another source of complexity the space just doesn't need to tackle yet).
--------------
TLDR: it is intentional because the goal is to in order of priorities:
1. get the architecture for eventual decentralisation right.
2. make it exist.
3. make it good.
4. make it easy to use for normal people.
5. build community.
6. focus on decentralisation.
Decentralisation in theory is the first priority but in practice it's the last priority. Being able to decentralise is always the utmost importance but forcing it to happen is not ever the top priority because that's on the community, not on the developers.
I think this part of the UX is just being neglected by bluesky.