Jetstream: Shrinking the AT Protocol Firehose by >99%

Re:Jetstream: Shrinking the AT Protocol Firehose by >99% by S0y on Tuesday September 24, 2024 @02:20PM (#41639452)

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$/month now to mirror the relay, but what's going to happen when it's 1000$?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Jetstream: Shrinking the AT Protocol Firehose by >99% by CyberDildonics on Tuesday September 24, 2024 @03:37PM (#41640097)

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?

[ Parent | on HN ]