Re: unsuitable protocols and standards that block innovation

[Martin Schanzenbach]

On Sat, 2024-03-16 at 19:54 +0200, MSavoritias wrote:
> 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.

I found this funny because there is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKyNqc1p2iw
and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFa77G9HTj0

:D

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

Secushare is not gnunet. And GNUnet has certainly not rejected the
notion of not having servers.
Of course when you design a service using GNUnet, you could reasonably
assume supernodes (but don't have to).
For example, looking at historical precedence (look at bittorrent or
IPFS), this is not unreasonable.
Relying on such nodes comes with its own problems, of course.

BR

> > > > 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
> 
> 
> 
>

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part