4 ms·

The central server is the "middleman" as I am using that term. Routers are not middlemen under the meaning I am using. I am referring to peer-to-peer without

The central server is the "middleman" as I am using that term. Routers are not middlemen under the meaning I am using. I am referring to peer-to-peer without any supernode forwarding traffic. No central server. There may be a "rendezvous server" involved in allowing two nodes to discover how to connect to one another, however that server does not route traffic. I never implied a need for encryption associated with peer-to-peer. The parent comment asked about avoiding a middleman. I have no idea what "end-to-end encryption" means, nor do I seek to know. I do not wish to be part of that debate. The record of how that term is being applied speaks for itself. I do know of the term "end-to-end" as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_to_end_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_to_end_principle One can find this concept in many of the early RFCs. To me, "peer-to-peer" (with no central server) is in the spirit of end-to-end. This is why for example, people will sometimes say, "The internet was originally peer-to-peer."

g-b-r 6y ago
I know that the term "peer-to-peer" could be interpreted in many ways, but to the best of my knowledge it is usually interpreted how I wrote above. Which I think it's pretty much how you defined it too in your (last) comment, so I'm not sure what we're debating. The important thing was that no one reading these comments get the impression that the multitude of systems that describe themselves as "peer-to-peer" are for sure using "encryption that a middle man cannot decrypt". --- > The parent comment asked about avoiding a middleman Middle man in cryptography is anyone intercepting a message --- > I have no idea what "end-to-end encryption" means, nor do I seek to know Well, I don't mean to be rude, but then there's not much you can say in a discussion about encryption... --- Look, the important thing was to underscore that the https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23554823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23554823 comment was (apparently) wrong, I don't have any interest in winning a battle, I appreciate your enthusiasm, you probably currently don't know everything about cryptography or networking and there's nothing wrong with that, no one is born expert and no one knows everything there is to know. I have to go to sleep, bye
- pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
  Just because the peer-to-peer software known to you may suck does not mean that the concept of peer-to-peer is obsolete. Nevermind Wireguard and other known examples of peer-to-peer software that does not suck, consider that there is software you do not know about. The idea that "peer-to-peer" is Napster plus some list of crappy, widely known software fiddling around with DHTs and dreaming about "the next big thing" is nonsense. Peer-to-peer is just a design principle The term the parent comment used was "middle man" not man-in-the-middle. As for "E2EE", I have never seen djb even use that term. I see many untrustworthy "tech" companies using it though.
  - g-b-r 6y ago
    I don't know what's going on here, I never said that any peer-to-peer software sucks or that the concept is obsolete, in fact I much prefer it if a system is distributed/peer-to-peer. All I said and cared to stress, to avoid that someone reading this make mistaken assumptions about p2p software (although probably few of this site's users would run the risk), is that ^^^they don't, as you claimed in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23554823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23554823 , automatically imply "encryption that a middle man cannot decrypt"^^^. You admitted you don't even know what end-to-end encryption is, and apparently don't know much about encryption, what are you debating? --- > The term the parent comment used was "middle man" not man-in-the-middle It's the same thing (unless the post author meant "a man of middle age") --- > As for "E2EE", I have never seen djb even use that term You mean Daniel J. Bernstein with djb? Do you mean that you are actually knowledgeable about encryption? I don't mean to be insulting but it didn't seem so (and there wouldn't be anything bad in that), it's hard to believe that someone with basic familiarity with encryption wouldn't know what end-to-end encryption is. If with "that term" you meant the E2EE acronym, I indeed wouldn't be surprised if Daniel J. Bernstein never used it, it's the first time I see it myself (but it obviously doesn't mean anything more than "end-to-end encryption"). --- I don't know why you took it so personally, maybe I sounded aggressive in saying NO in uppercase, if so I'm sorry, it was just to make it more visible
    - pwdisswordfish2 6y ago

g-b-r 6y ago

I know that the term "peer-to-peer" could be interpreted in many ways, but to the best of my knowledge it is usually interpreted how I wrote above. Which I think it's pretty much how you defined it too in your (last) comment, so I'm not sure what we're debating. The important thing was that no one reading these comments get the impression that the multitude of systems that describe themselves as "peer-to-peer" are for sure using "encryption that a middle man cannot decrypt". --- > The parent comment asked about avoiding a middleman Middle man in cryptography is anyone intercepting a message --- > I have no idea what "end-to-end encryption" means, nor do I seek to know Well, I don't mean to be rude, but then there's not much you can say in a discussion about encryption... --- Look, the important thing was to underscore that the https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23554823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23554823 comment was (apparently) wrong, I don't have any interest in winning a battle, I appreciate your enthusiasm, you probably currently don't know everything about cryptography or networking and there's nothing wrong with that, no one is born expert and no one knows everything there is to know. I have to go to sleep, bye

pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
Just because the peer-to-peer software known to you may suck does not mean that the concept of peer-to-peer is obsolete. Nevermind Wireguard and other known examples of peer-to-peer software that does not suck, consider that there is software you do not know about. The idea that "peer-to-peer" is Napster plus some list of crappy, widely known software fiddling around with DHTs and dreaming about "the next big thing" is nonsense. Peer-to-peer is just a design principle The term the parent comment used was "middle man" not man-in-the-middle. As for "E2EE", I have never seen djb even use that term. I see many untrustworthy "tech" companies using it though.
- g-b-r 6y ago
  I don't know what's going on here, I never said that any peer-to-peer software sucks or that the concept is obsolete, in fact I much prefer it if a system is distributed/peer-to-peer. All I said and cared to stress, to avoid that someone reading this make mistaken assumptions about p2p software (although probably few of this site's users would run the risk), is that ^^^they don't, as you claimed in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23554823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23554823 , automatically imply "encryption that a middle man cannot decrypt"^^^. You admitted you don't even know what end-to-end encryption is, and apparently don't know much about encryption, what are you debating? --- > The term the parent comment used was "middle man" not man-in-the-middle It's the same thing (unless the post author meant "a man of middle age") --- > As for "E2EE", I have never seen djb even use that term You mean Daniel J. Bernstein with djb? Do you mean that you are actually knowledgeable about encryption? I don't mean to be insulting but it didn't seem so (and there wouldn't be anything bad in that), it's hard to believe that someone with basic familiarity with encryption wouldn't know what end-to-end encryption is. If with "that term" you meant the E2EE acronym, I indeed wouldn't be surprised if Daniel J. Bernstein never used it, it's the first time I see it myself (but it obviously doesn't mean anything more than "end-to-end encryption"). --- I don't know why you took it so personally, maybe I sounded aggressive in saying NO in uppercase, if so I'm sorry, it was just to make it more visible
  - pwdisswordfish2 6y ago