reply on: SN Saturday Newsletter 8/10/24 \ stacker news ~meta

221 sats \ 2 replies \ @nerd2ninja 11 Aug \ on: SN Saturday Newsletter 8/10/24 meta

k00b, I need to correct you. I did not say Bisq's system was decentralized. I literally said

Don't call this decentralized. Someone has to push the button to tell the computer what the outcome was.

and what I was proposing was that people might enjoy this custodial system which we have called collaborative custody when talking about something like unchained capital for example. You know they would call this collaborative custody and we should too.

So I'm a little offended now that I'm being misrepresented as if I said this was a way to do a decentralized thing which I spent two multi-comma sentences saying that it wasn't. People taking these systems to unreasonable extremes with lies as marketing material is why I and others often have to condemn them altogether. Don't be the reason I have to condemn this structure.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 11 Aug

I’m sorry. I didn’t conclude that from what you said. It was my own misunderstanding about how it worked. For some reason I was under the impression it was federated.

121 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 11 Aug

I distinguish between federated things and decentralized things. Fedi-mint for example has always claimed to be federated, not decentralized. In the US there is a federated government (federal government).

I make the distinction because in the general understanding of the word decentralized, people believe decentralized things mean that they are self sovereign and unruggable. Any mastadon (or other fediverse) user can tell you that they aren't unruggable.

Bisq does unfortunately clearly outline that they are federated (without using the correct word) and incorrectly call that decentralized, so in that sense maybe I shouldn't have used Bisq as the example. Their documentation on dispute resolution is pretty good, but they just use the wrong word to describe a few things.