Re: unsuitable protocols and standards that block innovation

[MSavoritias]

On 3/16/24 17:08, carlo von lynX wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 04:19:21PM +0200, MSavoritias wrote:
> > By servers I mean a separate machine that is used to run services non
> > graphically that usually needs to be always online.
> No, there are machines that *need* to be online, but there are
> always human beings that *like* to have machines always online
> even if they don't need it for GNUnet.
Again thats where we disagree. I disagree that always online systems are 
thing to strive for. At any layer of a network system.
> > I see how it may be beneficial for some abstract "efficiency" scale i just
> > don't think the tradeoffs are worth it.
> Point is, the tradeoffs you are probably thinking of aren't there.
>
> Federation doesn't work because people are supposed to TRUST
> some server, be it from their school, their company or their
> big brother. In our architecture, a "super node" has zero
> advantages over other nodes - no access to any data - it merely
> makes things smoother for the ones that are dear to you.
> So where are the trade-offs?

Of course a super node has advantages. Social ones for starters. Any 
"super node" that makes things run "smoother" will have social power.

The tradeoffs were mentioned maybe you missed them:

> for accessibility, for equality, for autonomy and the environment

> > Personally its simple I don't want to reinvent everything. Also our goals
> > are radically different as I have mentioned.
> I think bikes with square wheels are fine, I don't want to invent a round wheel!

Ok I feel like you are on purpose trying to ridicule arguments instead 
of trying to engage in good faith here.

If you dont want to have a discussion thats fine. I just wanted to have 
another voice in this mailing list besides your subjective dislike of 
xml and xmpp.

> > I don't want scale or servers/nodes.
> Then you don't want adoption by the human race, just by small groups?

The question is not why I dont want it to scale. The question to ask is: 
Why do we need it to scale in the first place

I invite you to read https://ar.al/2020/08/07/what-is-the-small-web/ the 
small web and https://permacomputing.net/ on why things dont have to scale.

> > > Federation has failed us big time and it is all the reason why GNUnet exists.
> > By federation i mean that the room is hosted by all participants. We can
> > call it distributed too.
> Please use scientific vocabulary. Federation is NOT distributed.
> Federation is when servers talk to each other and you have to
> entrust a server to participate. It's the concept GNUnet rejected
> from the start.

You mean scientific like:

> I think bikes with square wheels are fine, I don't want to invent a 
round wheel!

Please dont try to gatekeep speech here.

If Gnunet has rejected it thats good. Sadly secushare seems to still 
want servers/nodes around.

> > > Well, that's what the social graph is good for. Secushare would like to
> > > have a distributed social graph, not completely transparent, but such
> > > that you can tell if a communication going through your node is coming
> > > from a trustworthy source, even if you don't know exactly who it is.
> > >
> > > Spammers then don't have much of a chance because they all come in from
> > > one single person in the social network which can be pointed out as the
> > > spam origin and eliminated.
> > >
> > > I don't see a need for digging into detailed caps for this if the general
> > > principle works, but I may be misjudging this.
> > In your example the spammer can contact other people right? That's a
> > fundamental failure of the current internet architecture.
> The only way for spammers to exist is to leverage their own social
> network of friends. They can do that only once, then they are isolated.
> By logical consequence they will not even attempt to do so, because
> it sucks to blacklisted by all people you know.
>
> And the spammers that you are talking about do not even have the
> address necessary to reach a recipient, because they can neither
> be guessed nor enumerated.

But like what if I have published my address in mastodon?

I was reading the https://secushare.org/rendezvous page and it actually 
doesn't say anything about the usecase of how is a person allowed to 
contact you.

In the sense that capabilities in networks of consent work like this:

I delegate a token to my friend to "introduce" people to me and only 
people that possess the token can actually contact me. and of course 
with all the usual guarantees capabilities provides.

Is secushare allowing people to contact me without me explicitly 
allowing them to? Because in the above scenario even if they had my ego 
they still wouldn't be able to contact me.

secushare seem to even have a discovery mechanism which doesnt even 
mention if its opt-in. And I am talking about all layers for this here. 
from traffic to pages to chat.

> > Any future architectures should make sure that the spam message doesn't even
> > reach the recipient to begin with.
> That's what we've been preaching to the advocates of the
> broken Internet for years. Glad you arrived to the same
> conclusions as us.

Does GNUnet plan to be a network of consent with capabilities? Because 
right now its just an open permissionless hellscape unless you turn on 
f2f but f2f is hopelessy worse than networks of consent.


MSavoritias