Because, despite being wildly impractical, it's technically built on tech that COULD be decentralized. Only recent a new host launched called Black sky. So it is no longer just one host. But it's been one host for so long it almost doesn't matter because so few people will switch.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 11 points 1 week ago

Because, despite being wildly impractical, it’s technically built on tech that COULD be decentralized.

Yes exactly, it reminds me of the logic of cryptocurrency boosters. I just found out that the bluesky CEO (not to mention jack dorsey) are both crypto advocates so it makes a lot more sense now.

[–] tomenzgg@midwest.social 6 points 1 week ago

Technically, yes, if you squint; but, practically, no. It was designed with a prioritization of passing the information/data around to avoid any lack of missing anything (so you get a closer experience to the connectedness of Twitter than Mastodon) which means every instance hosts, basically, the entire world. Naturally, there's only going to be a few entities that can store and afford to store the entirety of the data of the network. There's no such thing as a small instance, in their protocol.

[–] HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Doesn't BS have things in it's software that are hard coded to the main server, so it's not possible to make a completely independent host at the moment?

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They continue to control 100% of the relays so they can control what servers are connected to the others.

[–] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago

Blacksky runs their own relay

[–] Natanael 3 points 1 week ago

https://whtwnd.com/bnewbold.net/3lo7a2a4qxg2l

A Full-Network Relay for $34 a Month

[–] Natanael 2 points 1 week ago

The PLC registry is the only such thing, and also it's not a blocker because you can use the DID:Web scheme to manage your own account identity