Hacker News Reader

For me the following points come to mind reading something like this, which I think you also partly addressed:

1) Cloud hosting --> might as well use the centralized application because this is still centralized.

2) Peering your own hardware for a direct internet connection is not accessible to most people.

3) even in a p2p context, your PC or mobile device is not under your full control and especially in the US, most broadband goes through one of a small number of service providers (Comcast for example)

So I agree with you: network architecture is a major stumbling block.

On second thought, though, that still doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to create "decentralized" applications that are accessible to most average people somehow. I believe this is possible and without a huge upfront cost (besides time). They could still gain power through traction.

And as far as hosting content for others in a p2p context, I think part of the point of a scheme like that is you should never be able to know what you're hosting. It should be opaque encrypted blocks of data, right?

This won't happen anyway, because it's a classic collective choice problem. If all people put some alternative software on their WIFI router at the same time, this fully decentralized mesh web would come into existence at once in most densely populated areas in Europe and the US (all big cities at least), and almost everybody would have an immediate advantage from it. But if only a few people do it first, they'll have tremendous disadvantages from it due to freeriders, abuses, etc. So it won't happen ever.

I remember to have seen a protocol for such ad hoc mesh networks that wasn't even IP-based and could be implemented on most routers. The network can dynamically self-configure, route around failures, and nodes can go in and out of existence whenever they want. It looked pretty cool but unfortunately can't remember where I've seen it. :/

Are you thinking of cjdns?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cjdns

https://github.com/cjdelisle/cjdns

> Where the change will come is when we are no longer dependent on paying for network access.

When is that going to happen? All those routers, etc. don't run on fairy dust and the people that keep them serviced and running kind of enjoy doing things like being able to afford to eat, etc.

Even if you get rid of that part, you have to provide power to the devices and pay for a place to put them. Don't expect that a local telco's going to let you just slap a box on their pole rent-free. Any halfway savvy businessman is going to say "Good of humanity? That'll be $25/mo to put your box in my shop." unless there's some larger, provable benefit to him or herself.

> When is that going to happen?

It already happens/has happened with AMPRnet, HSMM, CUWiN, Freifunk, FunkFeuer, OpenWireless, Firetide, Guifi.net, Netsukuku, Ninux, Senceive, and others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_mesh_network

When higher levels of portable energy become safer and cheaper, then it would be more likely that a small radio could be used to transmit and receive over longer distances.

If a company like Google and Facebook were to provide free adequately high-speed internet access, there'd be less incentive for a free peer-based network wherever they provided free access. Google's free wired plan is lower speed and they didn't plan to expand it; however, I'm not sure about their plans for Wifi. Neither Facebook nor Google have stated they plan to provide access everywhere. So, free access via a peer-based network would remain an incentive over paid plans for the foreseeable future.