poztter.org
philosophy · essay 04
Centralization, when optional.
POZ asserts that centralization of providers and services is great — as long as it's purely optional and easily changed. The same standard supports a fully centralized identity, a fully decentralized one, or anything in between. The choice always belongs to the holder.
the false dichotomy
Most discussions of internet identity force a choice between two camps. On one side: centralized — efficient, discoverable, familiar, but holding all the power. On the other: decentralized — censorship-resistant and democratic in theory, niche and friction- heavy in practice. Both sides spend a lot of energy arguing that the other side is fundamentally wrong.
POZ rejects the framing. The problem with centralization isn't that it exists. The problem is that, in today's internet, it's the only practical option, and leaving comes at a real cost. The problem with decentralization isn't that it's unworkable. The problem is that it has historically demanded an all-or-nothing commitment from users who just want their stuff to work.
POZ can be fully decentralized
An individual can create their own POZ identity, share it, link identities, and use almost every benefit of POZ without ever contacting an internet server. Records are signed files. They can be passed over email, USB stick, NFC, QR code, or chat. Verification is local. The protocol doesn't require any infrastructure to exist.
This matters because it sets a floor. If every centralized provider went offline tomorrow, POZ records would still verify. People who had each other's records could still trust each other's identities. The system has no required intermediary.
POZ can be fully centralized
But centralization has done great things in human history, and will continue to. The phone book worked. The domain name system works. Social platforms, mail providers, content hosts — at their best they make discovery and communication dramatically easier than the alternative. POZ doesn't aim to topple large tech companies, and doesn't entertain the idea that the internet would be more useful as a uniform sea of distributed nodes following an elaborate algorithm.
An individual using POZ can route every operation through trusted providers — chosen registrars, chosen mail hosts, chosen social platforms — and get the convenience of centralization. The provider attests; the user signs; the binding is verifiable. Centralized, and that's fine.
the key condition: optional, and easily changed
The condition POZ places on centralization is a simple one: it has to be optional, and it has to be easily changed. A user who picked a mail host two years ago should be able to switch to a different one this afternoon without losing their identity. A business that started with one social network should be able to add another, or drop the first, without their customers having to re-learn who they are.
This isn't anti-centralization. It's anti-lock-in.
competitive revival
The bet POZ is making is that, given a real exit, providers will compete on something other than switching cost. Stability in the standard means a record outlives any single provider. Inherent distrust in strangers means new entrants don't get unearned credibility. Easily-broken bonds between centralized services mean providers have to keep their users honestly.
We hold to the philosophy that these three conditions — stability, distrust, breakable bonds — will result in a competitive revival of high-quality, trustworthy service providers. Not by replacing the centralized ones, but by making the choice between them mean something again.
cohabitation, in the short term
For now, POZ uses DNS, TLS, and HTTPS where they help. SRV records for discovery, TXT records for domain binding, HTTPS for fallback. None of these are POZ-native; all of them work. The ambition is independence, eventually. The path is cohabitation, now.
POZ records can be hosted on existing infrastructure. POZ attestations can be issued by existing providers. POZ verifies whether they cooperate or not — but it cooperates with them while they do.