Selfhosted

People constantly told OP that, but they just won't stop making posts about it

Not that the blockchain itself is a Bad idea, but after like a year or 2 of becoming popular it will be impossible for anyone to have a locally stored coin because they will be just multiple petabytes big

The reason why we picked Blockchain name systems is because they're the only way of having a full control over a name. There are lot of examples online with people getting their DNS revoked. What do you think the problem is with blockchain components?

Also, blockchain are only used for resolving names, which is a small part of Plebbit, the rest of stack is P2P.

I'm a little confused on this point. I took a look at their whitepaper and it says that they're not using blockchain at all. It's some sort of ~~proprietary~~ (edit: apparently open source) peer to peer algorithm. Is this something that changed in implementation? I'm not really familiar with this project so I'm certainly not trying to defend anything, just unclear as to why people are calling it a blockchain project specifically.

Edit: OK, after some more digging I see what people are talking about. The project itself isn't blockchain based, but it's run by a DAO that operates using a governance token, which is not exactly great.

Yup. Seems like just mismatched expectations from OP. I hope to see news from the project, there are a lot of interesting concepts.

I don't take issue with your points, but you're conflating issues. I think it's worth clarifying some terms up front.

Being utterly independent isn't necessary for decentralization. Decentralization very specifically means there's no single holder of the data; it does not have any implication for dependencies.

Lemmy is not decentralized; it's federated. "Decentralized" and "federated" are not synonyms, and as long as you doing don't run your own server, you're effectively on a centralized platform. This is to your point about being "always dependent on something, somewhere in some way." It's true for Lemmy; it is not true for all systems, not unless you're being pedantic, which wouldn't be helpful: you being dependent on electricity from your electric company doesn't mean an information network can't be "truly" decentralized.

A distributed ledger can be truly decentralized. Blockchains aren't always distributed ledgers, and not all distributed ledgers are blockchains, but whether or not a specific blockchain is resource intensive has no bearing on whether or not it's centralized. This is the part I take issue with: it's irrelevant to the decentralization discussion.

Bitcoin is decentralized: no single person or group of people control it, and there is no central server that serves as an authoritative source of information. If there were, it wouldn't be nearly so ecologically expensive. Its very nature as something that exists on equally on every single full node is part of the cost. You can take out any node, or group of nodes, and as long as there's one full node left in the world, bitcoin exists (you then have a consensus verification problem, but that's a different issue).

But let's look at a second, less controversial, example: git, or rather, git repositories. This is, again, fully decentralized, and depends on no single resource. Microsoft would like you to believe that github is the center of git, and indeed github is the main reason git is as popular as it is despite its many shortcomings, but many people don't use github for their projects, and any full clone of any repository is a independent and fully decentralized copy, isolated and uncontrolled by anyone but the person on whose computer it exists. Everything else is just convention.

Nostr is yet another fully decentralized ecosystem. It is, unfortunately, colonized almost entirely by cryptobros, and that's the majority of its content, but there's nothing "blockchain" or crypto in the core design. Nodes are simple key/value stores, and when you publish something to Nostr you submit it to (usually) a half-dozen different nodes, and it propagates out from there to other nodes. If you run your own node, even if your node dies, you still have your account and can publish content to other nodes, because your identity - your private key - is stored on your computer. Or, if you're smart, on your phone, and maybe your laptop too, with backups. Your identity need not even be centralized to one device. No single group can stop you from publishing - individual nodes can choose to reject your posts, and there are public block lists, but not every node uses those. It is truly decentralized.

I'm not familiar with Plebbit, but it seems to me they're trying to establish a cryptographically verifiable distributed ledger - a distributed blockchain. There's no proof-of-work in this, because the blocks are content, so the energy cost people associate with bitcoin is missing.

DHTs and distributed ledgers are notoriously difficult to design well, often suffering from syncing lags and block delivery failures. Jami is a good example of a project plagued by DHT sync issues. I'm not surprised they're taking a long time to get stable, because this is a hard problem to solve - a deceptively simple problem to describe, but syncing hides issues like conflict resolution, updating published content, and all the administrative tools necessary in a world full of absolute shitheads who just want to cause chaos. It does look to me as it it would be fully decentralized, in a way Lemmy isn't, if they can get it working reliably.

It was supposed to be a lot more decentralized than Lemmy. Plebbit was built around a p2p protocol and the idea was that it wouldn’t rely on servers, everything would be fully serverless and self-hosted in a true decentralized way. What made it interesting was that it was planned to support multiple UIs, so people could use different frontends like their own version of Lemmy’s UI, or even something totally custom. A Lemmy style UI was even on their roadmap.

But the problem is... it never really happened. It’s been super slow because there are only like 3 devs working on it, and they’ve been trying to find more help for ages. The MVP still hasn’t come out, and I think the crypto side of it just scared people off or made things harder. I really believed in the idea at first, but now it just feels like vaporware.

Feel free to check out Seedit, it's the most mature Plebbit client so far. There may be bugs here and there but we're working on it every day to make it better.

posts would be markdown files

Seedit, which is a plebbit client actually parses posts as Markdown, try it on Seedit

images would only be allowed as links to an image hosting platform

It's already this way with Plebbit, we only allow text.

Having it be open source and every member with a fork (I don’t know if there’s a way to auto update forks) so we don’t risk losing everything if the host shuts down (I don’t use mastodon because apparently you can’t export posts)

On Plebbit all clients are open source with GPL V2, they can also be self hosted easily with a single click. Check out seedit repository Seedit

I really don't think that would scale at all. A reasonably popular community could have tons of simultaneous posts, and if everyone needs to sync before posting, that would suck. You could probably avoid the worst of it by having posts use uuids, but you're going to have IO issues at scale. Also, would you need the full repo cloned? That can get big, and you generally only care about recent posts.

Also, if you're doing the UUID thing, you'd have sort everything every time locally. That's fine if you only have a few thousand posts, but if you get into millions or billions, it'll get bad, especially if you're dealing with files.

Databases solve these problems really well. Even a simple SQLite dB would be much better than a filesystem, like orders of magnitude better.