3 ms·
> Not at all. SSB has multiple types of private messages. I didn't mean that everything has to be plaintext, but has to be public in order for gossip to work.
by southerntofu 5y ago
> Not at all. SSB has multiple types of private messages.
I didn't mean that everything has to be plaintext, but has to be public in order for gossip to work. Or did i miss something? It's fine if metadata aggregation is not a concern of yours, and if you're rather certain your encryption algorithms won't be broken in the next decades.
That rooms2 proposal looks very interesting (didn't read it all), but i'm curious if there's a state-of-the-art review you can link me to. I just don't understand the necessity to develop yet another protocol if the goal is just to break through NAT?
- soapdog 5y agoI understand your concerns regarding metadata aggregation. SSB was not designed with those considerations. I think that with those concerns as a constraint you kinda need a different protocol. I think that rooms2 required a new protocol because of the handshake required for two peers to connect. I'm not an expert on protocol stuff, I write one of the clients but I'm usually working on higher levels than protocol work. I suspect that rooms2 is not just NAT breakage but it has some of the handshake and security involved in it. If you want to dig deeper, I suggest asking for links on their rooms 2.0 repo. I'm not aware of a review like that, but I'm usually working with other stuff. I know there were some papers published recently, maybe those will appeal to you. :-)