4 ms·

Nothing is going to change unless we break free of this shit VC funny money cycle.

zaik 5y ago
You might like XMPP then - IETF Internet standard, always had decentralization and e2e encryption. I still don't understand why so much energy was invested in building a seperate ecosystem. Matrix claims to be fundamentally different, but all their major selling points (dencentralization, e2ee, open protocol) were already there. And since the Matrix encryption protocol is incompatible with all the other ones there's currently no way to securely communicate with someone outside their network.
- dathinab 5y ago
  But XMPP failed (as a decentralized open protocol in the wider picture).
  - olah_1 5y ago
    Maybe it failed in the consumer app space because it couldn’t keep up with user experience expectations. But if that is the metric, then Matrix already failed too, right? One new server + consumer app combo could revive XMPP for consumers quite easily.
    - tffgg 5y ago
      So not keeping up to users expectations - no matter how much - makes a failure? I think your argumentation is flawed. If your server+consumer app combo can do that, do that
      - olah_1 5y ago
        I was giving the person above me the benefit of the doubt. I assume that was their argument, not mine. But i entertained the idea regardless.
- tffgg 5y ago
  It hasn't really been there: - encryption wasn't really there (and still is experimental) - decentralization does not exist to the degree that Matrix provides it And Matrix is fundamentally different. It works somewhat similar to git compared to XMPP being more like IRC, which results in a completely different form of decentralization. E2EE is different as well - even if both are based on the Signal Protocol: Matrix encrypts for groups of people instead of single devices I doubt Matrix would be where it is if they tried to bend XMPP
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    Decentralization in XMPP exists to a much greater degree that in is in Matrix.
    - Macha 5y ago
      Practical decentralization, where you can talk to your friend that uses a different provider? Not just using the same client for Facebook and your corporate chat instance?
      - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        Practical decentralisation, as in thousands of servers connected to each other in one federation, working for 20 years.
      - zaik 5y ago
        > Practical decentralization, where you can talk to your friend that uses a different provider? Yes. You can find some lists of servers participating in the federation here: https://xmpp.org/getting-started/ https://xmpp.org/getting-started/ It's just that XMPP providers are not required to participate in the federation. Sadly, large instances like WhatsApp choose not to.
  - zaik 5y ago
    > encryption wasn't really there (and still is experimental) Clients could encrypt messages using OpenPGP and the more recent OMEMO seems pretty reliable to me (Conversations, Gajim).

zaik 5y ago

You might like XMPP then - IETF Internet standard, always had decentralization and e2e encryption. I still don't understand why so much energy was invested in building a seperate ecosystem. Matrix claims to be fundamentally different, but all their major selling points (dencentralization, e2ee, open protocol) were already there. And since the Matrix encryption protocol is incompatible with all the other ones there's currently no way to securely communicate with someone outside their network.

dathinab 5y ago
But XMPP failed (as a decentralized open protocol in the wider picture).
- olah_1 5y ago
  Maybe it failed in the consumer app space because it couldn’t keep up with user experience expectations. But if that is the metric, then Matrix already failed too, right? One new server + consumer app combo could revive XMPP for consumers quite easily.
  - tffgg 5y ago
    So not keeping up to users expectations - no matter how much - makes a failure? I think your argumentation is flawed. If your server+consumer app combo can do that, do that
    - olah_1 5y ago
      I was giving the person above me the benefit of the doubt. I assume that was their argument, not mine. But i entertained the idea regardless.
tffgg 5y ago
It hasn't really been there: - encryption wasn't really there (and still is experimental) - decentralization does not exist to the degree that Matrix provides it And Matrix is fundamentally different. It works somewhat similar to git compared to XMPP being more like IRC, which results in a completely different form of decentralization. E2EE is different as well - even if both are based on the Signal Protocol: Matrix encrypts for groups of people instead of single devices I doubt Matrix would be where it is if they tried to bend XMPP
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Decentralization in XMPP exists to a much greater degree that in is in Matrix.
  - Macha 5y ago
    Practical decentralization, where you can talk to your friend that uses a different provider? Not just using the same client for Facebook and your corporate chat instance?
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      Practical decentralisation, as in thousands of servers connected to each other in one federation, working for 20 years.
    - zaik 5y ago
      > Practical decentralization, where you can talk to your friend that uses a different provider? Yes. You can find some lists of servers participating in the federation here: https://xmpp.org/getting-started/ https://xmpp.org/getting-started/ It's just that XMPP providers are not required to participate in the federation. Sadly, large instances like WhatsApp choose not to.
- zaik 5y ago
  > encryption wasn't really there (and still is experimental) Clients could encrypt messages using OpenPGP and the more recent OMEMO seems pretty reliable to me (Conversations, Gajim).