Wiki source code of Federation & Decentralization
Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2025/12/24 11:48
Show last authors
| author | version | line-number | content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | = Federation & Decentralization = | ||
| 2 | **Status**: 🔮 **Planned for V2.0+** (not in V1.0 scope) | ||
| 3 | FactHarbor is designed to eventually support federation, but this feature is **deferred until core product is proven and user demand exists**. | ||
| 4 | == V1.0 Scope (Current) == | ||
| 5 | **Single-node deployment**: | ||
| 6 | * Full-featured standalone instance | ||
| 7 | * Read replicas for scaling if needed | ||
| 8 | * All features available without federation | ||
| 9 | * Focus on core product quality | ||
| 10 | **Why defer federation**: | ||
| 11 | * Adds massive complexity (sync, conflicts, identity, governance) | ||
| 12 | * Not needed for first 10,000 users | ||
| 13 | * Core product must be proven first | ||
| 14 | * Build when users explicitly request it | ||
| 15 | == V2.0+ Federation (Future Vision) == | ||
| 16 | **Implement federation when**: | ||
| 17 | * ✅ 10,000+ users on single node | ||
| 18 | * ✅ Users explicitly request decentralization | ||
| 19 | * ✅ Core product is stable and mature | ||
| 20 | * ✅ Geographic distribution becomes necessary | ||
| 21 | === Federation Features (Future) === | ||
| 22 | **Independent FactHarbor Instances**: | ||
| 23 | * Each node operates autonomously | ||
| 24 | * Local governance and moderation | ||
| 25 | * Regional data sovereignty | ||
| 26 | * Domain specialization possible | ||
| 27 | **Claim Synchronization**: | ||
| 28 | * Claims propagate between trusted nodes | ||
| 29 | * Conflict resolution protocols | ||
| 30 | * Distributed consensus on verdicts | ||
| 31 | * Maintain source attribution | ||
| 32 | **Federated Identity**: | ||
| 33 | * Users recognized across nodes | ||
| 34 | * Reputation portable (with consent) | ||
| 35 | * Single sign-on capabilities | ||
| 36 | * Privacy-preserving authentication | ||
| 37 | **Decentralized Governance**: | ||
| 38 | * Each node sets own policies | ||
| 39 | * Collaborative standards development | ||
| 40 | * Inter-node arbitration for disputes | ||
| 41 | * Federation-level oversight (optional) | ||
| 42 | === Technical Architecture (Future) === | ||
| 43 | **Sync Protocol**: | ||
| 44 | * ActivityPub-inspired messaging | ||
| 45 | * Claim deltas and updates | ||
| 46 | * Source verification across nodes | ||
| 47 | * Bandwidth-efficient synchronization | ||
| 48 | **Identity Management**: | ||
| 49 | * Decentralized identifiers (DIDs) | ||
| 50 | * Verifiable credentials | ||
| 51 | * Public key infrastructure | ||
| 52 | * Privacy-preserving authentication | ||
| 53 | **Data Sovereignty**: | ||
| 54 | * Each node controls own data | ||
| 55 | * Cross-node queries (opt-in) | ||
| 56 | * GDPR compliance per jurisdiction | ||
| 57 | * Right to be forgotten respected | ||
| 58 | === Benefits of Federation (Future) === | ||
| 59 | **Resilience**: | ||
| 60 | * No single point of failure | ||
| 61 | * Censorship resistance | ||
| 62 | * Geographic redundancy | ||
| 63 | * Community ownership | ||
| 64 | **Autonomy**: | ||
| 65 | * Local governance | ||
| 66 | * Regional moderation policies | ||
| 67 | * Cultural sensitivity | ||
| 68 | * Domain specialization | ||
| 69 | **Scalability**: | ||
| 70 | * Horizontal growth through new nodes | ||
| 71 | * Regional distribution reduces latency | ||
| 72 | * Load distribution across federation | ||
| 73 | * Independent scaling per node | ||
| 74 | **Trust**: | ||
| 75 | * Decentralized verification | ||
| 76 | * Multiple independent sources | ||
| 77 | * Transparent provenance | ||
| 78 | * Community validation | ||
| 79 | === Challenges to Address (Future) === | ||
| 80 | **Technical Complexity**: | ||
| 81 | * Synchronization protocols | ||
| 82 | * Conflict resolution | ||
| 83 | * Network reliability | ||
| 84 | * Performance at scale | ||
| 85 | **Governance Complexity**: | ||
| 86 | * Inter-node standards | ||
| 87 | * Dispute resolution | ||
| 88 | * Quality consistency | ||
| 89 | * Abuse handling | ||
| 90 | **User Experience**: | ||
| 91 | * Node discovery | ||
| 92 | * Identity management | ||
| 93 | * Seamless cross-node interaction | ||
| 94 | * Performance transparency | ||
| 95 | == Why Not V1.0? == | ||
| 96 | **Reality check**: | ||
| 97 | * Most successful platforms start centralized (Wikipedia, Reddit, GitHub) | ||
| 98 | * Federation can be added later (see: Mastodon, Matrix) | ||
| 99 | * Core product quality matters more than architecture philosophy | ||
| 100 | * Users don't care about federation until they need it | ||
| 101 | **Build federation when**: | ||
| 102 | * Users say "I want to run my own instance" | ||
| 103 | * Censorship becomes a real problem | ||
| 104 | * Geographic distribution is required | ||
| 105 | * Community governance demands it | ||
| 106 | Until then: **Focus on making the core product excellent** 🎯 | ||
| 107 | == Related Pages == | ||
| 108 | * [[Architecture>>FactHarbor.Specification.Architecture.WebHome]] - Current V1.0 architecture | ||
| 109 | * [[Design Decisions>>FactHarbor.Specification.Design-Decisions]] - Why we defer complexity | ||
| 110 | * [[When to Add Complexity>>FactHarbor.Specification.When-to-Add-Complexity]] - Federation triggers | ||
| 111 | == Historical Note == | ||
| 112 | Previous versions (V0.9.50-0.9.58) included detailed federation specifications. These have been moved to future vision documents. The federation architecture is well-designed and ready to implement when the time comes—we're just not building it in V1.0. | ||
| 113 | **See**: `/future-vision/federation-architecture.md` for complete technical specifications (when implemented). |