|Subject:||Re: [GNUnet-developers] Contribute to groupchat. was (Re: Hello! (brief introduction and lots of questions))|
|Date:||Mon, 1 Jul 2019 12:35:25 +0200|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/52.9.1|
On 27.06.2019 23:02, Marcos Marado wrote:
Correct, that is the reason for planing what we like to achieve with groupchat. At the moment it is a prototype to use and try out Cadet.
Yes, we will separate the code. Furthermore we like to get rid of the server completely, because this contradicts the core principles of GNUnet to have no clients and servers at all.
Actually we already have something like that. That is the gnunet-cadet cli.
If you just want to use existing services over Cadet you can try GNUnet VPN.
As mentioned above we like to get rid of the client/server paradigm when using GNUnet for all kinds of fututre application.
What the secushare group likes to achieve is described here http://secushare.org
The groupchat is only a starting point to reach the goals behind secushare.
Some near future high level goals are:
- having nim bindings for the GNUnet identity api
- implementing a psyc parser in nim
- get rid of the groupchat server, but using available (being online) peers in a group to do the multicast. This obviously needs peers of the group being online to have asynchronous messaging.
- better usability of the TUI
- a REST Interface for the groupchat functionality.
- a web interface using that REST interface
Far future goals
- introducing relay (not part of the group) nodes, for doing the message multicast in case no peer of a group is online. Therefore we need to introduce some group encryption.
- Metadata protection when using the relay nodes. Therefore we need an additional layer above cadet to hide the cadet route. Ideas for achieving this is onion routing, or decentralized mixnets.
If you like to know more details join our weekly mumble on Wednesday 20:15 CEST.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|