On this page:
1.1 Abstract
1.2 How Netfarm deviates from existing designs
1.3 The structure of Netfarm
1.4 Thanks
1.5 What to do next

1 Introduction

1.1 Abstract

Netfarm is an attempt at creating a distributed, trustless object system. We develop Netfarm to fill a perceived void in the rapidly-expanding “decentralisation” bubble, to utilise the greater fault tolerance of a distributed hash table and simplify programming via a client language’s meta object protocol, and to devise less hierarchical moderation techniques that do not leave them at the whim of their servers’ operators and administrators.

The design of Netfarm is not ideal due to historical and planning issues; but it should serve well as an introduction to trustless object systems, which we believe can be easier to program and have better throughput than some of the models that are used frequently today, such as blockchains (demonstrated to be usable for programming in Ethereum) and various federated protocols (such as ActivityPub, notably used in Mastodon among other “fediverse” blogging servers).

To summarise the design, Netfarm implements a synchronous message-passing object system (like Smalltalk or Self) hosted on a distributed hash table. A Netfarm network can reach eventual consistency as state is either so unlikely to collide, such as objects which are stored by hashes, which are probably less likely to collide than for a computer to incorrectly compute a hash; or it is simple to unify, such as computed values. However, Netfarm does not decide on an ordering of computed values, and so has fairly weak consistency guarantees.

1.2 How Netfarm deviates from existing designs

Some of these points are made redundant by the preceding paragraphs, but it may be worthwhile to explain why we made those claims, and why they are desirable.

The greater fault tolerance of a distributed hash table, in contrast to a federated system, is provided by users not having identity or state stored in one server (or server identity), so the failure of one server will not make the network useless for any group of users.

It is also not uncommon for federated systems to have clustering problems. If the developers of a system run a server in that system, it is likely they will encourage users to use their server, or not encourage users to use other servers. In one egregious system, the developers sell servers for their network. It’s likely that they’re all hosted in the same data centres; what happens if something there goes down? Ouch. This phenomenon is not only influenced by the developers, though. When one person tells their friends that they are moving onto a federated system, and provide their username (which includes the domain name of the server), it is likely their friends will use that server too.

Another reason that federated systems have clustering, and a very repugnant problem, is that the roles of community moderation and system administration are often confused. With smaller servers, this is not an issue, as there may be few enough users to be manageable by the few administrators of a server, and the users may share sufficient opinions that allow administrators to do relatively little work. However, the largest three Mastodon servers have 1.3 million users between them  (Rousseau 2017), so this is not a very good excuse.

If one is unhappy with the way their server is moderated, some ever-so-wise users remind them they are “free” to leave for another, which is incredibly impolite. We feel obligated to state that it’s analogous to "suggesting" that one should leave their country if they are not happy with how it is governed, which is usually considered by them to be a very lousy argument, and one we consider to be similar in sentiment to theirs (except that moving country is often harder than moving server).

The questions of node operation and moderation in Netfarm are fully separated}, allowing users to decide with case-by-case granularity on what content they want to see, and to aggregate their peers’ decisions with various techniques.

We are also obligated to mention blockchains, which are distributed transaction logs of sorts. “Full nodes” in those systems store almost every transaction, whereas Netfarm nodes benefit from the use of a distributed hash table, in which nodes only store part of the network’s state. However, mutability in Netfarm is still accomplished with “transactions” through the use of computed values. (The Ethereum system is likely to implement “sharding”, which splits state over the network  (Ethereum developers 2019), but that technique is very different to using a distributed hash table.)

Netfarm does not prescribe any use-cases, nor is it designed for any specific applications. Using schemas and their scripts, it is possible to implement many different programs atop Netfarm.

The meta-object protocol of the client language makes interaction with Netfarm objects trivial; Netfarm objects are client objects, and Netfarm schemas can be defined using client classes.

1.3 The structure of Netfarm

We see the Netfarm system as a combination of various components:

However, a user should be able to modify and use any component separately, and should have extensive control over many aspects of the system, to implement any changes while still acting as a “client” of the system, that does not modify the system itself.

1.4 Thanks

We would like to thank Luke Nuttall (currently reachable on Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/luke_is_frog/) for providing a drawing of the Netfarm mascot Demeter.

We would also like to thank Robert Strandh for providing advice on optimising the Netfarm script machine and how Netfarm should interact with client code, and Gilbert Baumann for also suggesting optimisations for the script machine and several stylistic concerns, among other many other insightful discussions.

1.5 What to do next

The boundaries that separate a Netfarm implementation and its host language are not yet clear. Several questions remain, such as how much a Netfarm node must know about the data it is verifying, and what it is expected to do for its clients.

We forsee that a new distributed object system will have to be created, to overcome flaws that were introduced to Netfarm through its age and attempts to persue multiple goals. One such problem was that we chose the means of interaction with the network to be sending and receiving data, which creates an awkward split in mechanisms, between the creation of an object and objects sending messages to each other.

As such, we would like to remind the reader that they should take care to form their own opinions on how such a system should be structured from any problems they have noticed, and that Netfarm is not the end-all of distributed object systems. We would hope for something like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s dream in this quotation:

Je rêve une société où je serai guillotiné comme conservateur.

(I dream of a world in which I would be executed as a reactionary.)

We hope the approach we have developed for Netfarm, of identifying and constructing alternatives to many forms of centralisation, will be commonplace and we will be the ones developing centralised systems.