12 ms·

> No server-side processing. You lost me at hello. While it might seem like a cool P2P idea to remove the central authority of the server, its removal leaves a

> No server-side processing. You lost me at hello. While it might seem like a cool P2P idea to remove the central authority of the server, its removal leaves a vacuum of responsibilities. How do you prevent cheating (setting personal bank account to $1,000,000.00), how do you coordinate events (send DM/Notification to clients when a resource changes), how do you handle transactions? Maybe I'm out of date and all those distributed techniques are known, but I don't think so.

ThomPete 16y ago
It seems a little preemptive to dismiss this idea and frankly I don't think you are looking at this in the right perspective. Trust could be built over time between both the people and their account. I for one welcome a future where my social interaction isn't a product or service owned by anyone else but myself. Why so fast to dismiss it?
- simonh 16y ago
  >Why so fast to dismiss it? Because there are genuine legitimate questions about how this infrastructure can support a lot of fundamental web application work flows and processes? I'd welcome a future like that too, but I had the same reservations. Raising pertinent questions isn't the same as dismissing something.
  - ThomPete 16y ago
    * Because there are genuine legitimate questions about how this infrastructure can support a lot of fundamental web application work flows and processes? * Sure there are. But before they are answered why not give them the benefit of doubt? Do you like what they attempt to do? Then why not suggest how they could improve it?
- fleitz 16y ago
  Projects like this never take off. Code first then announce. Also, it solves a problem no one has. Also the idea of owning a social interaction yourself seems silly and inconsiderate to others. If you don't like facebook just delete your account
  - TomasSedovic 16y ago
    The code is on github, they link to it from the page. And personally, I do have the problem this attempts to solve. Whether this is the right solution to it I don't know. But the problem does exist.
- bbarthel 16y ago
  I don't think I understand what they are proposing here. When I read this it sounds like a simple return to client applications. The workflow sounds like: 1) I go to the web to download the application. 2) Once I have the application I run it locally. 3) I encrypt and save the data back to "the cloud". Since I own the data, I can specify where to save it and the "web" becomes nothing more than distributed storage. This is nothing I can't already do if I choose. We already have things like Silverlight applications, Java applications, Flash applications, etc. that all run client-side in the browser. Throw in ClickOnce deployment from Microsoft (which installs a .NET application directly to your computer by visiting a website and agreeing to the install), the linux app repositories, or even just the old "purchase and download" model, and I do not see how this proposal solves a technical problem we currently have - and if it is not a technical problem, then proposing a technical solution isn't going to solve it. If I understand the intent, it is to prevent companies from owning the data that we create. Where the code executes does not seem to be relevant.
JoachimSchipper 16y ago
Bank accounts can't be done without letting the bank know a lot of things about you anyway, and I can imagine a "ping me on changes to resource xyz" extension to handle the second problem. That said, I do agree with you that this isn't the most... convenient... model.
tzs 16y ago
I think you've misunderstood what he's proposing. He's talking about getting rid of server processing of client data, such as spreadsheets, word processing documents, schedules, and so on. Things where the data is all yours. Your bank balance is not your data. That's the bank's data. All you have is a cache of its recent value. If you want to set that cached value to a million dollars that is fine. The bank will still have the correct amount, and that is what determines how much money you actually have.

ThomPete 16y ago

It seems a little preemptive to dismiss this idea and frankly I don't think you are looking at this in the right perspective. Trust could be built over time between both the people and their account. I for one welcome a future where my social interaction isn't a product or service owned by anyone else but myself. Why so fast to dismiss it?

simonh 16y ago
>Why so fast to dismiss it? Because there are genuine legitimate questions about how this infrastructure can support a lot of fundamental web application work flows and processes? I'd welcome a future like that too, but I had the same reservations. Raising pertinent questions isn't the same as dismissing something.
- ThomPete 16y ago
  * Because there are genuine legitimate questions about how this infrastructure can support a lot of fundamental web application work flows and processes? * Sure there are. But before they are answered why not give them the benefit of doubt? Do you like what they attempt to do? Then why not suggest how they could improve it?
fleitz 16y ago
Projects like this never take off. Code first then announce. Also, it solves a problem no one has. Also the idea of owning a social interaction yourself seems silly and inconsiderate to others. If you don't like facebook just delete your account
- TomasSedovic 16y ago
  The code is on github, they link to it from the page. And personally, I do have the problem this attempts to solve. Whether this is the right solution to it I don't know. But the problem does exist.
bbarthel 16y ago
I don't think I understand what they are proposing here. When I read this it sounds like a simple return to client applications. The workflow sounds like: 1) I go to the web to download the application. 2) Once I have the application I run it locally. 3) I encrypt and save the data back to "the cloud". Since I own the data, I can specify where to save it and the "web" becomes nothing more than distributed storage. This is nothing I can't already do if I choose. We already have things like Silverlight applications, Java applications, Flash applications, etc. that all run client-side in the browser. Throw in ClickOnce deployment from Microsoft (which installs a .NET application directly to your computer by visiting a website and agreeing to the install), the linux app repositories, or even just the old "purchase and download" model, and I do not see how this proposal solves a technical problem we currently have - and if it is not a technical problem, then proposing a technical solution isn't going to solve it. If I understand the intent, it is to prevent companies from owning the data that we create. Where the code executes does not seem to be relevant.

JoachimSchipper 16y ago

Bank accounts can't be done without letting the bank know a lot of things about you anyway, and I can imagine a "ping me on changes to resource xyz" extension to handle the second problem. That said, I do agree with you that this isn't the most... convenient... model.

tzs 16y ago

I think you've misunderstood what he's proposing. He's talking about getting rid of server processing of client data, such as spreadsheets, word processing documents, schedules, and so on. Things where the data is all yours. Your bank balance is not your data. That's the bank's data. All you have is a cache of its recent value. If you want to set that cached value to a million dollars that is fine. The bank will still have the correct amount, and that is what determines how much money you actually have.