[str4d]

> > If you want large scale social networks, you need to work with a large scale of data. Since federated open queries aren’t feasible, you need big machines.

> Thats just simply not true.

> [snip]

> This is why ActivityPub has a discovery problem by the way, but it's just a symptom of real federation.

You're actually agreeing with them! The "discovery problem" is because "federated open queries aren't feasible".

> With ATProto you NEED to connect to some centralized relay that will broker your messages for you.

You can connect to PDSs directly to fetch data if you want; this is exactly what the relays do!

If you want to build a client that behaves more like ActivityPub instances, and does not depend on a relay, you could do so:

- Run your own PDS locally, hosting your repo.

- Your client reads your repo via your PDS to see the accounts you follow.

- Your client looks up the PDSs of those accounts (which are listed in their DID documents).

- Your client connects to those PDSs, fetches data from them, builds a feed locally, and displays it to you.

This is approximately a pull-based version of ActivityPub. It would have the same scaling properties as ActivityPub (in fact better, as you only fetch what you need, rather than being pushed whatever the origins think you need). It would also suffer from the same discovery problem as ActivityPub (you only see what the accounts you follow post).

At that point, you would not be consuming any of the _output_ of a relay. You would still want relays to connect to your PDS to pull data into their _input_ in order for other users to see your posts, but that's because those users have chosen to get their data via a relay (to get around the discovery problem). Other users could instead use the same code you're using, and themselves fetch data directly from your PDS without a relay, if they wanted to suffer from the discovery problem in exchange for not depending on a relay.

[S0y]

It doesn't change the fact that if someone were to do that, it wouldn't be supported by anyone let alone the main bluesky firehose. I think it's pretty disingenuous to just say "You can do it" when what your suggesting is so far off the intended usage of the Protocol that it might as well be a brand new implementation. As a matter of fact, people DO already do this. they use ActivityPub and talk to bluesky using a bridge.

The core of the issue is, Bluesky's current model is unsustainable. The cost of running the main relay is going to keep rising. The barrier to discovery keeps getting higher and higher. It might cost 150$/month now to mirror the relay, but what's going to happen when it's 1000$?

[CyberDildonics]

Blue Sky supposedly has 5.5 million active users.

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

By your own numbers it averages 2.7 MB/s. This is manageable with a good cable internet connection or a small vps. This is a small number for 5.5 million active users.

What happens if it expands to 10 times its current active users? Who knows, maybe only the 354 million people around the world with access to gigabit broadband can run a full server at home and the rest of the people and companies that want to run full servers will have to rent a vps.

https://www.telecompetitor.com/gigabit-availability-report-1...

The point here is that this is not a practical problem. How many of these servers do you really need?