5 ms·

This sounds a lot like (full disclosure: mine) https://github.com/amark/gun https://github.com/amark/gun ? How do you compare? - Except ours is Open Source (MI

This sounds a lot like (full disclosure: mine) https://github.com/amark/gun https://github.com/amark/gun ? How do you compare? - Except ours is Open Source (MIT/ZLIB/Apache2) and ranked #2 on GitHub in Blockchain and Cryptography https://github.com/topics/blockchain https://github.com/topics/blockchain - Performance benchmarks are posted publicly https://github.com/amark/gun/wiki/100000-ops-sec-in-IE6-on-2GB-Atom-CPU https://github.com/amark/gun/wiki/100000-ops-sec-in-IE6-on-2... - It has been load tested doing 100M+ records/day for $10/total costs (CPU, disk, backup) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_WqBuEA7s8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_WqBuEA7s8 - Explains how consensus, CRDTs, and DAGs work http://gun.js.org/distributed/matters.html http://gun.js.org/distributed/matters.html

wslh 8y ago
Can you link your project foundations to a peer reviewed paper with adversarial attack analysis?
- marknadal 8y ago
  http://stanford.edu/~nadal/A-Decentralized-Data-Synchronization-Protocol.pdf http://stanford.edu/~nadal/A-Decentralized-Data-Synchronizat...
  - wslh 8y ago
    Where are the independent security reviews? Also, I don't see past references where you based your new idea. Please take into account that I am respecting you for your work but this field involves more than a claim. If you look, for example, to simmetric encryption algorithms history, there were a lot of proposals and people involved in trying to crack them. Many of them sounded great but were break by professional cryptographers. The blockchain scene is full of proposals but there are very few security reviews.
    - marknadal 8y ago
      Go have anybody you want look at the code, it is open source. My friends like Dominic Tarr (of Secure Scuttlebutt), security teams at MIT (Christian and Dmitri), and others have consulted with me about it. If you are willing to contribute donations to pay a firm, please do!
    - marknadal 8y ago
      You edited your post after I replied. We're not writing our own cryptography, lol, we're using existing libraries based around OpenSSL using industry accepted and standardized algorithms and curves (ECDSA 256, AES 256, ECDH 256, PBKDF, etc.) So yes, please email me the moment those get broken/cracked and we'll upgrade to whatever new standards are available.
      - somenewacc 8y ago
        I hope you understand that you can use secure primitives (such as ECDSA and AES) to build insecure protocols.
        marknadal 8y ago
        And I hope you understand we've spent over a year with a large open source community collectively working on reviewing the implementation, discussing it with colleagues around the world from MIT and Navy personnel and more, working to make it secure, and even now still improving it. Do you have any vulnerability to report? Please send it in. Security is an always evolving process.
  - wgjordan 8y ago
    So no industry/academic peer review yet. The link is to a self-published whitepaper, and the 'stanford.edu' affiliation is through a visiting postdoc at the Graduate School of Education (nothing CS related).
    - marknadal 8y ago
      The usual complaint is "what about your blockchain crypto economic incentives?" for that, we turned to a PhD in psychology for behavioral economics. So yes, her PhD is in psychology, and she's a visiting research scientist at Stanford's School of Education. Meanwhile, I work on the computer science side, although am not an academic (although I interact with plenty of academics, MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, and some European schools). The tech talk I linked to explains how the algorithms work (CRDTs), you don't need to be an academic to understand how it works. The system has been used on Navy warships, as well. If you'd like to talk to the Sergeant Major who deployed the system in production in the industry, shoot me an email and I'll happily connect you. :)
hobofan 8y ago
Can you please stop spamming this every time a remotely related topic (which apparently now also includes CRDTs and blockchain) is mentioned?
- marknadal 8y ago
  GUN is a CRDT, you should know that if you've read my comments from years ago. I get it, you don't like seeing Open Source (MIT/ZLIB/Apache2) posted about. But that isn't my problem, others do, and I don't profit from it. In fact, it takes a significant amount of my time to help provide free support to any the ~8K developers developers in our community. I'm not ashamed of this, nor do I think it is spam. If I was selling a service or a product, sure. But that isn't the case.
  - hobofan 8y ago
    > I get it, you don't like seeing Open Source (MIT/ZLIB/Apache2) posted about. No you don't get it. I love hearing about such products - from the people who love using it so much that they feel the need to spread the word around. Submissions about project news are also great, because they can be separately up/downvoted, and don't ride on the coattails of trending submissions. That plus deceitful marketing tricks ("ranked #2 on Github" for a buzzword keyword you picked out, doesn't mean shit) is clearly spam in my book. > and I don't profit from it Is it not true that you run a VC-funded company that is behind gun, as you have claimed on other occasions? If it's VC-funded there probably is a profit goal in the foreseeable timeline. > ~8K developers in our community Stars on Github doesn't translate to community members, especially if they are gained by high-publicity actions, like posts on HN. This is meant as advice coming from someone who made the mistake of seeing them equivalent in the past. We got ~5k stars via HN for Leaf[0], and I know that only about 10-20 people tried to even use the library. Judging from the activity on the gun repo, it does look to be a little bit better, but not by much. [0]: https://github.com/autumnai/leaf https://github.com/autumnai/leaf
    - marknadal 8y ago
      The fact that we get so much traffic and contributors to our community from HN means that for every 1 person like you who is so disgruntled and disturbed by other hackers talking about their Open Source projects, that there is a good 70 to 80 who appreciate it, get value from it, discover a new cool tool, and wind up building projects and helping out. Can you see, at all, from the other perspective? Maybe I annoy the living daylights out of you, but can you also see how you come off as one of those cliche "hater HN commentors"? If you had 3 worlds to choose from, one where people openly talk about their work which they give away for free to others, or a world where everybody tries to censor, silence, and hate on others for being passionate about their Open Source projects, or a world where, because everybody is so spiteful and nobody is supportive, that everybody is forced to make their software proprietary and charge for it. Which world would you want to be in? VC funding is another indication/signal of the value I have created. And no, they don't want me to do some stupid "open core" crippleware (like some of my competitors do) or even convert the open source code from MIT/similar to a terrible AGPL/similar license. They want me to create such a core component of infrastructure that we become the defacto standard, like MySQL, Redhat, and others have become. So no. You have no basis to hate what we are doing, except for your own frustration probably at hate others have given you. Don't pass that along, you are better than that.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

wslh 8y ago

Can you link your project foundations to a peer reviewed paper with adversarial attack analysis?

marknadal 8y ago
http://stanford.edu/~nadal/A-Decentralized-Data-Synchronization-Protocol.pdf http://stanford.edu/~nadal/A-Decentralized-Data-Synchronizat...
- wslh 8y ago
  Where are the independent security reviews? Also, I don't see past references where you based your new idea. Please take into account that I am respecting you for your work but this field involves more than a claim. If you look, for example, to simmetric encryption algorithms history, there were a lot of proposals and people involved in trying to crack them. Many of them sounded great but were break by professional cryptographers. The blockchain scene is full of proposals but there are very few security reviews.
  - marknadal 8y ago
    Go have anybody you want look at the code, it is open source. My friends like Dominic Tarr (of Secure Scuttlebutt), security teams at MIT (Christian and Dmitri), and others have consulted with me about it. If you are willing to contribute donations to pay a firm, please do!
  - marknadal 8y ago
    You edited your post after I replied. We're not writing our own cryptography, lol, we're using existing libraries based around OpenSSL using industry accepted and standardized algorithms and curves (ECDSA 256, AES 256, ECDH 256, PBKDF, etc.) So yes, please email me the moment those get broken/cracked and we'll upgrade to whatever new standards are available.
    - somenewacc 8y ago
      I hope you understand that you can use secure primitives (such as ECDSA and AES) to build insecure protocols.
      - marknadal 8y ago
        And I hope you understand we've spent over a year with a large open source community collectively working on reviewing the implementation, discussing it with colleagues around the world from MIT and Navy personnel and more, working to make it secure, and even now still improving it. Do you have any vulnerability to report? Please send it in. Security is an always evolving process.
- wgjordan 8y ago
  So no industry/academic peer review yet. The link is to a self-published whitepaper, and the 'stanford.edu' affiliation is through a visiting postdoc at the Graduate School of Education (nothing CS related).
  - marknadal 8y ago
    The usual complaint is "what about your blockchain crypto economic incentives?" for that, we turned to a PhD in psychology for behavioral economics. So yes, her PhD is in psychology, and she's a visiting research scientist at Stanford's School of Education. Meanwhile, I work on the computer science side, although am not an academic (although I interact with plenty of academics, MIT, Berkeley, Stanford, and some European schools). The tech talk I linked to explains how the algorithms work (CRDTs), you don't need to be an academic to understand how it works. The system has been used on Navy warships, as well. If you'd like to talk to the Sergeant Major who deployed the system in production in the industry, shoot me an email and I'll happily connect you. :)

hobofan 8y ago

Can you please stop spamming this every time a remotely related topic (which apparently now also includes CRDTs and blockchain) is mentioned?

marknadal 8y ago
GUN is a CRDT, you should know that if you've read my comments from years ago. I get it, you don't like seeing Open Source (MIT/ZLIB/Apache2) posted about. But that isn't my problem, others do, and I don't profit from it. In fact, it takes a significant amount of my time to help provide free support to any the ~8K developers developers in our community. I'm not ashamed of this, nor do I think it is spam. If I was selling a service or a product, sure. But that isn't the case.
- hobofan 8y ago
  > I get it, you don't like seeing Open Source (MIT/ZLIB/Apache2) posted about. No you don't get it. I love hearing about such products - from the people who love using it so much that they feel the need to spread the word around. Submissions about project news are also great, because they can be separately up/downvoted, and don't ride on the coattails of trending submissions. That plus deceitful marketing tricks ("ranked #2 on Github" for a buzzword keyword you picked out, doesn't mean shit) is clearly spam in my book. > and I don't profit from it Is it not true that you run a VC-funded company that is behind gun, as you have claimed on other occasions? If it's VC-funded there probably is a profit goal in the foreseeable timeline. > ~8K developers in our community Stars on Github doesn't translate to community members, especially if they are gained by high-publicity actions, like posts on HN. This is meant as advice coming from someone who made the mistake of seeing them equivalent in the past. We got ~5k stars via HN for Leaf[0], and I know that only about 10-20 people tried to even use the library. Judging from the activity on the gun repo, it does look to be a little bit better, but not by much. [0]: https://github.com/autumnai/leaf https://github.com/autumnai/leaf
  - marknadal 8y ago
    The fact that we get so much traffic and contributors to our community from HN means that for every 1 person like you who is so disgruntled and disturbed by other hackers talking about their Open Source projects, that there is a good 70 to 80 who appreciate it, get value from it, discover a new cool tool, and wind up building projects and helping out. Can you see, at all, from the other perspective? Maybe I annoy the living daylights out of you, but can you also see how you come off as one of those cliche "hater HN commentors"? If you had 3 worlds to choose from, one where people openly talk about their work which they give away for free to others, or a world where everybody tries to censor, silence, and hate on others for being passionate about their Open Source projects, or a world where, because everybody is so spiteful and nobody is supportive, that everybody is forced to make their software proprietary and charge for it. Which world would you want to be in? VC funding is another indication/signal of the value I have created. And no, they don't want me to do some stupid "open core" crippleware (like some of my competitors do) or even convert the open source code from MIT/similar to a terrible AGPL/similar license. They want me to create such a core component of infrastructure that we become the defacto standard, like MySQL, Redhat, and others have become. So no. You have no basis to hate what we are doing, except for your own frustration probably at hate others have given you. Don't pass that along, you are better than that.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]