Okay so reading this post on Bluesky architecture…

https://mastodon.social/@timbray@cosocial.ca/110317828684895643

Am I reading right this idea that BlueSky consists of (1) collect all the posts in the world into a "BGS" funnel (2) run a second program to filter the funnel for the events you care about? Isn't that kinda… blockchainy? Like in terms of forcing a literal planet's worth of activity through a linear chokepoint? Didn't blockchain show this architecture does the opposite of "scale"?

Is the BGS feed actually linear?

Like, it *is* the case that there are performance consequences for Mastodon/ActivityPub's hyper-filtered "every server sends every server only the things it needs" , and those performance consequences are part of what keeps me from running a Mastodon node myself— I do *not* want to be a postgres admin— but perhaps is this going too far in the other direction…?

The post (which is vague) says other architectures are possible in their idiom. Maybe we'll see some of those emerge after federation.

Anyway I'm not seeing anything that makes me go "nope, bug out" in this architecture breakdown but it's…well, I'm not super enthused.

If it's possible to do this by serving static files, I do actually intend to publish a BS feed (probably a mirror of my Mastodon feed) on one of my sites, and let people ingest it if they wish. But if the only way to *read back responses* is to read a stream ultimately sourced from BSKY and their [retch] "marketplace of algorithms", maybe I'll be BSing write-only

When I was trying to design a system with some of these characteristics (P2P Mastodon in which you get someone's posts/activity indirectly, through anyone with a signed copy) I was thinking the activity-collating entities would be the moderating entities. Seems straightforward: If you can't follow moderation rules, you can't get collated. I imagined a series of small tightly-governed communities whose feeds pooled together into larger more general communities. A tree rather than a funnel. (1/3)