• merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 hours ago

    What annoys me is that people are buying the idea that BlueSky is federated.

    Not only is it not federated, the very architecture they designed means that it’s probably not federateable, at least not by normal users.

    The way they designed it, a relay is required to collect and forward every single BlueSky post. That means, as the service grows, it becomes more and more impossible for anybody but a company to run a relay. Someone did some calculations back in November when it was a significantly smaller network, and they calculated that at a minimum it costs a few hundred dollars, possibly as much as 1000 bucks a month just to handle the disk storage needs for a relay on a leased server. The more the network grows, the more those costs skyrocket.

    What good does it do to have a network that theoretically can be federated, but practically costs so much to run a single node that nobody except a for-profit company can manage it?

    • Bilb!@lem.monster
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 minutes ago

      I guess it could allow multiple funding models. Instance A is ad supported, instance B is a paid service. Not exciting for us self hosters, but there is possibility there.