4 ms·

Perhaps people are responding to your unwarranted, toxic tone, your rudeness elsewhere in the comments, and your inability to give even a modicum of respect to

by stouset 10y ago

Perhaps people are responding to your unwarranted, toxic tone, your rudeness elsewhere in the comments, and your inability to give even a modicum of respect to the developers who've not only designed and openly published groundbreaking advances in secure private messaging protocols, and not only implemented them and freely distributed those implementations, but have also worked to have those designs incorporated into the some of the most widely-used messaging software in history.

ChoHag 10y ago
It lacks the most basic, fundamental property of a secure system: A demonstration (actual proof can wait!) that it can be trusted without handwavium. I don't care if it's the dog's bollocks or the bee's knees. If I can't trust it, it's useless for secure communication. I don't give the tiniest shit how many hours some twat on the internet, or well-paid collection of highly-trained twats, has poured into its creation if they can't even be arsed to give a basic description of its most fundamental property. And that moniker can remain until they do.
- Canada 10y ago
  Feel free to propose a secure, decentralized way to pass the payload between the endpoints. Be sure your solution includes an effective mechanism to mitigate spam. Bonus if your solution denies attackers access to the same metadata centralized systems do. Double bonus if you can support push messaging systems to deliver timely notification that users have come to expect.
  - ChoHag 10y ago
    I'm not trying to propose a "way" of anything, "secure", "decentralised" or otherwise! Don't you get it? I'm talking about the documentation. I have no idea if this solution to the problems posed is sound because before I can even get to the source code there is no description of how or even whether it solves the fundamental problems in the cryptographic situation it describes (viz. device which cannot straightaway engage in IP communication requires to receive unsolicitated securely-encrypted messages).
    - Canada 10y ago
      > whether it solves the fundamental problems in the cryptographic situation it describes (viz. device which cannot straightaway engage in IP communication requires to receive unsolicitated securely-encrypted messages). Please elaborate and clarify.
  - Natanael_L 10y ago
    Home servers connected over I2P, hopefully.
newjersey 10y ago
Instead of responding to the tone, let's concentrate on the merits. For most people, it is unacceptable to require both parties to be simultaneously online in a chat session. I'm very interested in any potential implementation that allows asymmetric conversations without a dedicated third node (if we don't like the name server) somewhere in between.
- stouset 10y ago
  Of course tone is relevant. Tone is how one has a civil conversation with another person, even if they disagree.
  - newjersey 10y ago
    Ah, thanks for displaying your civility with a down vote, downvoter. Some people are rougher around the edges than others. I thought this place was a sjw heaven but clearly some people want this place to be a monoculture as well.
    - sctb 10y ago
      > Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Tone matters. It's not everything, but it matters. There are people, and/or messages, in which a lack of civility needn't warrant a complete dismissal. They're relatively rare. I'm willing to give a hearing here. Crypto is, for better or worse, an area in which there is a tendency toward both informed and abrasive contributions. I'm aware HN doesn't take well to that. I've been arguing the opposite strategy for the past few days with a friend (he likes tossing bollocks about, I prefer avoiding that). I'd advise ChoHag to tone it down (and reconsider their chosen handle), but contribute. I did consider vouching the flagged/dead comment, but decided against in this case.

by stouset 10y ago

ChoHag 10y ago

It lacks the most basic, fundamental property of a secure system: A demonstration (actual proof can wait!) that it can be trusted without handwavium. I don't care if it's the dog's bollocks or the bee's knees. If I can't trust it, it's useless for secure communication. I don't give the tiniest shit how many hours some twat on the internet, or well-paid collection of highly-trained twats, has poured into its creation if they can't even be arsed to give a basic description of its most fundamental property. And that moniker can remain until they do.

Canada 10y ago
Feel free to propose a secure, decentralized way to pass the payload between the endpoints. Be sure your solution includes an effective mechanism to mitigate spam. Bonus if your solution denies attackers access to the same metadata centralized systems do. Double bonus if you can support push messaging systems to deliver timely notification that users have come to expect.
- ChoHag 10y ago
  I'm not trying to propose a "way" of anything, "secure", "decentralised" or otherwise! Don't you get it? I'm talking about the documentation. I have no idea if this solution to the problems posed is sound because before I can even get to the source code there is no description of how or even whether it solves the fundamental problems in the cryptographic situation it describes (viz. device which cannot straightaway engage in IP communication requires to receive unsolicitated securely-encrypted messages).
  - Canada 10y ago
    > whether it solves the fundamental problems in the cryptographic situation it describes (viz. device which cannot straightaway engage in IP communication requires to receive unsolicitated securely-encrypted messages). Please elaborate and clarify.
- Natanael_L 10y ago
  Home servers connected over I2P, hopefully.

newjersey 10y ago

Instead of responding to the tone, let's concentrate on the merits. For most people, it is unacceptable to require both parties to be simultaneously online in a chat session. I'm very interested in any potential implementation that allows asymmetric conversations without a dedicated third node (if we don't like the name server) somewhere in between.

stouset 10y ago
Of course tone is relevant. Tone is how one has a civil conversation with another person, even if they disagree.
- newjersey 10y ago
  Ah, thanks for displaying your civility with a down vote, downvoter. Some people are rougher around the edges than others. I thought this place was a sjw heaven but clearly some people want this place to be a monoculture as well.
  - sctb 10y ago
    > Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Tone matters. It's not everything, but it matters. There are people, and/or messages, in which a lack of civility needn't warrant a complete dismissal. They're relatively rare. I'm willing to give a hearing here. Crypto is, for better or worse, an area in which there is a tendency toward both informed and abrasive contributions. I'm aware HN doesn't take well to that. I've been arguing the opposite strategy for the past few days with a friend (he likes tossing bollocks about, I prefer avoiding that). I'd advise ChoHag to tone it down (and reconsider their chosen handle), but contribute. I did consider vouching the flagged/dead comment, but decided against in this case.