8 ms·

This is why there should not be a single entity that runs the network. Make it fully decentralized with economic incentives for node operators. some projects

by olah_1 5y ago

This is why there should not be a single entity that runs the network. Make it fully decentralized with economic incentives for node operators. some projects trying to do this now are Status, Session, Sylo

ekianjo 5y ago
Signal fights decentralization anyway so they are not a reliable actor.
personjerry 5y ago
That already exists, it's called the Internet
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  Problem is, messaging platforms in "the Internet" aren't interoperable. If I use service X, I usually can only talk to people that also uses X. So "the Internet" is mostly composed of silos. Silos are the reason that platforms get centralized in the first place: people generally enjoy using the same X as their peers, so they can communicate in a single platform.
- _carbyau_ 5y ago
  The issue is the internet doesn't provide the required service for individuals to find each other directly. We need DNS for everyone, not just the rich...er those bothering to register a name. Make it GUID based, and let people contact each other by GUID instead of phone number. Preferably add privacy enhancing encryption too so that only those with your public key could decrypt your GUID DNS entry to then find your IPv6 address. Or something smarter than that probably.
  - salawat 5y ago
    as soon as you create a namespace like that, you've made the lever that will be utilized for centralized control. In reality, if you had no chance of getting somewhere without the centralized registry, you don't have the connection.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      Don't Tor onion services basically work like that already?
    - _carbyau_ 5y ago
      What I am proposing is an extension to DNS to allow individuals to find each other directly rather than having to go through middlemen like FB etc to simply message each other. DNS already exists as a point of centralised control. Service Providers already have to log IP vs user accounts. don't see how extending DNS for the masses could make things any worse. As a sibling comment points out though, who pays to run it?
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    LDAP could have been that service - a distributed directory. I'm not sure why it didn't become universal. OpenLDAP's a bugger to configure, and it's much more than you need for a simple directory. But ActiveDirectory is nearly omnipresent.
  - phicoh 5y ago
    As far as I know, Matrix wants to do something similar to this. They want user IDs to be public keys. A user ID can be bound to a name, but can change the name over time and keep your connections. I'd say the big problem at the moment is that people are not used to paying for service. Lots of stuff related to naming is very cheap. But if you require it to be free, then you will get bad incentives like trying to build a silo and fill that silo with ads.
    - _carbyau_ 5y ago
      Would it be a thing that ISPs could manage/charge users for? That way, users ARE paying for it. And honestly, it is a fundamental internet service, just not in the way most people think of.
acjohnson55 5y ago
It can be made illegal to be an operator and to use those incentives in the sanctioned marketplace.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  The state can shut down anything in theory. In practice it is much harder in a liberal democracy to shut down a network where operators are numerous, interchangable and have low capital requirements.
  - analyst74 5y ago
    like drugs, prostitution, and myriad of other small time victim-less crimes?
    - logicchains 5y ago
      All of which the state has failed to stop?
    - dannyw 5y ago
      Are you aware of how easy it is to find drugs and prostitutes?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
        Is it? I honestly don’t know. Seriously. I’ve never been offered drugs by anyone in my life and I couldn’t tell you if someone standing on a street-corner is someone simply wanting to cross the street when the lights change or an undercover cop… or an actual prostitute. What am I supposed to be looking for? (Yes, I’m on-the-spectrum and don’t get invited to parties, so I’m not representative of everyone else’s experience, but I am being sincere in my anecdote)
strogonoff 5y ago
> This is why there should not be a single entity that runs the network. Make it fully decentralized with economic incentives for node operators. Just make the network work based on open protocols, where anyone can run a server that interoperates with others. (Matrix.) For the non-developer end-user, they can use one of the existing servers, who in theory could charge their users. Yes, it would be hard to maintain branding cohesion, and the product/service would lose to a centralized service. However, transitioning to heterogenous social/messaging landscape (from current oligopolies) could make smaller services like that competitive. IMO it’s not clear we should treat a legal/political issue with technical workarounds, it doesn’t seem sustainable.
- unnouinceput 5y ago
  So what you are proposing is TOR but with a twist to charge connections?
  - DocTomoe 5y ago
    Actually, what OP is proposing is federation, like e-Mail. Some people do pay for their e-Mail providers today...
    - strogonoff 5y ago
      Yes, that was the idea. Matrix does something like this for messaging.
- olah_1 5y ago
  Matrix system sucks because the servers are branded with domain names and the server operators have total ownership of your account. In a network like Status or Session, you don’t need to know and don’t care who runs the node you happen to be using at a given moment.
jiggunjer 5y ago
you purposely ignored the biggest name? or is matrix not as popular as I thought?
- olah_1 5y ago
  Matrix system sucks because the servers are branded with domain names and the server operators have total ownership of your account. In a network like Status or Session, you don’t need to know and don’t care who runs the node you happen to be using at a given moment.
  - jiggunjer 5y ago
    what do you mean by ownership of account. You can migrate to other servers if you want? Or does that mean you lose your user ID which is tied to a provider/domain? Isn't registering an account necessary to avoid impersonating? how does Status ensure a stable user ID?
    - olah_1 5y ago
      It’s actually quite brilliant on Status. Everyone gets a random super long number for an ID. Your friends can assign your name when they add you as a contact (just like phone numbers). And then you can also get a globally recognizable name like ENS domains if you want to pay a little. It’s like a vanity plate on a car.
      - jiggunjer 5y ago
        but what prevents me from using your ID? I'm guessing something like a blockchain.
        olah_1 5y ago
        It’s just a random keypair. You can’t use my ID because you would only see my public key. https://specs.status.im/spec/2#initial-key-generation https://specs.status.im/spec/2#initial-key-generation
anonymousnotme 5y ago
Aren't both XMPP and matrix networks decentralized? XMPP has been around since 1999 according to wikipedia. It is my understanding that providers could keep metadata/logs about accounts involved.
- olah_1 5y ago
  They are both metadata sponges, but Matrix is on a whole different level of bad because it gossips that metadata to every server it connects with. Not to mention that you don’t actually own your accounts unless you run the server yourself.

by olah_1 5y ago

ekianjo 5y ago

Signal fights decentralization anyway so they are not a reliable actor.

personjerry 5y ago

That already exists, it's called the Internet

nextaccountic 5y ago
Problem is, messaging platforms in "the Internet" aren't interoperable. If I use service X, I usually can only talk to people that also uses X. So "the Internet" is mostly composed of silos. Silos are the reason that platforms get centralized in the first place: people generally enjoy using the same X as their peers, so they can communicate in a single platform.
_carbyau_ 5y ago
The issue is the internet doesn't provide the required service for individuals to find each other directly. We need DNS for everyone, not just the rich...er those bothering to register a name. Make it GUID based, and let people contact each other by GUID instead of phone number. Preferably add privacy enhancing encryption too so that only those with your public key could decrypt your GUID DNS entry to then find your IPv6 address. Or something smarter than that probably.
- salawat 5y ago
  as soon as you create a namespace like that, you've made the lever that will be utilized for centralized control. In reality, if you had no chance of getting somewhere without the centralized registry, you don't have the connection.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    Don't Tor onion services basically work like that already?
  - _carbyau_ 5y ago
    What I am proposing is an extension to DNS to allow individuals to find each other directly rather than having to go through middlemen like FB etc to simply message each other. DNS already exists as a point of centralised control. Service Providers already have to log IP vs user accounts. don't see how extending DNS for the masses could make things any worse. As a sibling comment points out though, who pays to run it?
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  LDAP could have been that service - a distributed directory. I'm not sure why it didn't become universal. OpenLDAP's a bugger to configure, and it's much more than you need for a simple directory. But ActiveDirectory is nearly omnipresent.
- phicoh 5y ago
  As far as I know, Matrix wants to do something similar to this. They want user IDs to be public keys. A user ID can be bound to a name, but can change the name over time and keep your connections. I'd say the big problem at the moment is that people are not used to paying for service. Lots of stuff related to naming is very cheap. But if you require it to be free, then you will get bad incentives like trying to build a silo and fill that silo with ads.
  - _carbyau_ 5y ago
    Would it be a thing that ISPs could manage/charge users for? That way, users ARE paying for it. And honestly, it is a fundamental internet service, just not in the way most people think of.

acjohnson55 5y ago

It can be made illegal to be an operator and to use those incentives in the sanctioned marketplace.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
The state can shut down anything in theory. In practice it is much harder in a liberal democracy to shut down a network where operators are numerous, interchangable and have low capital requirements.
- analyst74 5y ago
  like drugs, prostitution, and myriad of other small time victim-less crimes?
  - logicchains 5y ago
    All of which the state has failed to stop?
  - dannyw 5y ago
    Are you aware of how easy it is to find drugs and prostitutes?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
      Is it? I honestly don’t know. Seriously. I’ve never been offered drugs by anyone in my life and I couldn’t tell you if someone standing on a street-corner is someone simply wanting to cross the street when the lights change or an undercover cop… or an actual prostitute. What am I supposed to be looking for? (Yes, I’m on-the-spectrum and don’t get invited to parties, so I’m not representative of everyone else’s experience, but I am being sincere in my anecdote)

strogonoff 5y ago

> This is why there should not be a single entity that runs the network. Make it fully decentralized with economic incentives for node operators. Just make the network work based on open protocols, where anyone can run a server that interoperates with others. (Matrix.) For the non-developer end-user, they can use one of the existing servers, who in theory could charge their users. Yes, it would be hard to maintain branding cohesion, and the product/service would lose to a centralized service. However, transitioning to heterogenous social/messaging landscape (from current oligopolies) could make smaller services like that competitive. IMO it’s not clear we should treat a legal/political issue with technical workarounds, it doesn’t seem sustainable.

unnouinceput 5y ago
So what you are proposing is TOR but with a twist to charge connections?
- DocTomoe 5y ago
  Actually, what OP is proposing is federation, like e-Mail. Some people do pay for their e-Mail providers today...
  - strogonoff 5y ago
    Yes, that was the idea. Matrix does something like this for messaging.
olah_1 5y ago
Matrix system sucks because the servers are branded with domain names and the server operators have total ownership of your account. In a network like Status or Session, you don’t need to know and don’t care who runs the node you happen to be using at a given moment.

jiggunjer 5y ago

you purposely ignored the biggest name? or is matrix not as popular as I thought?

olah_1 5y ago
Matrix system sucks because the servers are branded with domain names and the server operators have total ownership of your account. In a network like Status or Session, you don’t need to know and don’t care who runs the node you happen to be using at a given moment.
- jiggunjer 5y ago
  what do you mean by ownership of account. You can migrate to other servers if you want? Or does that mean you lose your user ID which is tied to a provider/domain? Isn't registering an account necessary to avoid impersonating? how does Status ensure a stable user ID?
  - olah_1 5y ago
    It’s actually quite brilliant on Status. Everyone gets a random super long number for an ID. Your friends can assign your name when they add you as a contact (just like phone numbers). And then you can also get a globally recognizable name like ENS domains if you want to pay a little. It’s like a vanity plate on a car.
    - jiggunjer 5y ago
      but what prevents me from using your ID? I'm guessing something like a blockchain.
      - olah_1 5y ago
        It’s just a random keypair. You can’t use my ID because you would only see my public key. https://specs.status.im/spec/2#initial-key-generation https://specs.status.im/spec/2#initial-key-generation

anonymousnotme 5y ago

Aren't both XMPP and matrix networks decentralized? XMPP has been around since 1999 according to wikipedia. It is my understanding that providers could keep metadata/logs about accounts involved.

olah_1 5y ago
They are both metadata sponges, but Matrix is on a whole different level of bad because it gossips that metadata to every server it connects with. Not to mention that you don’t actually own your accounts unless you run the server yourself.