5 ms·

I'm still really disappointed he didn't go for a more long term solution, federation: https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-privacy-versus-freedom https://matri

I'm still really disappointed he didn't go for a more long term solution, federation: https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-privacy-versus-freedom https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-privacy-versus-freedom

goodpoint 5y ago
User lock-in is not just a glitch. It's the whole reason why people invested in signal. It's yet another walled garden masked as an open source no-profit.
gonehome 5y ago
Moxie's post that your Matrix link was a response to: https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ I think Moxie is right, federation will lead back to recentralized services (for the reasons Moxie outlines in his recent Web3 post). People don't want to run their own servers. In that world you'll have federated services that are mostly centralized with a much worse user experience than centralized competition. Signal's real competition isn't Matrix, it's FB messenger, Whatsapp, and iMessage. The incentive failures are actually upstream from the application layer of the web. Running a linux server is too hard, spam and auth are issues with the current tech stack, dependencies are a mess of complexity and federated systems built on the current stack can't really solve these issues so end up recentralizing to sysadmins that do (at best). This is the reason I started working on Urbit, I think to fix this for real you have to fix problems farther up the stack. Given the current landscape, Signal is the best available option imo for most people. Hopefully if Urbit succeeds we can have the federated system we want with UX that's actually competitive.
- chagaif 5y ago
  I prefer the Element UX especially since I can actually use it for WhatsApp/Telegram which I still use heavily, there are a lot of people/businesses/governments backing on Matrix, Signal is just another app that is controlled by the US government and I don't see much privacy there in the long term... Yes it will be recentralized but not completely, how come E-Mail did so good?
  - gonehome 5y ago
    You may personally prefer it just as some niche audience still personally prefers to run their own email server, but your grandma will never prefer it or use it and neither will 90% of the public. Email is an example of this class of failure. Almost everyone uses a centralized provider (mostly Google) and even if you do go through the effort to run your own server since nearly everyone you interact with is using gmail it's mostly pointless anyway. Signal is not controlled by the USG (see recent doc about what metadata they have access to via Signal). I ran a Matrix server for a while, the UX around setting up encryption is bad (not for lack of trying, it's just a hard problem given the constraints). Most people just use the Matrix.org server and will never run their own (which is the recentralization risk I'm talking about) - at best you'll have a couple providers, and dealing with spam is still a problem. You'll also have a system that adapts slowly because it's harder to make changes to this kind of system, it'll always be worse. To escape the incentives that lead back to recentralization and to create a federated system that isn't just another niche nerd hobby, you really have to think about the issues that lead back to centralization from first principles. I think Urbit's design and the tradeoffs they make do this. https://moronlab.blogspot.com/2010/01/urbit-functional-programming-from.html https://moronlab.blogspot.com/2010/01/urbit-functional-progr... https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit
    - rglullis 5y ago
      > You may personally prefer it just as some niche audience still personally prefers to run their own email server. No. This is a false dichotomy. There is a very healthy market for email service providers. Basically every domain registrar runs one, a good amount of ISPs... there can be a cottage industry for service providers. > Almost everyone uses a centralized provider Because the large companies make it free to try to make their money by either exploiting the data or by using the email service as a loss leader. Signal can not do either, so they will have to rely on some other revenue stream, or they will end up like Mozilla.
    - chagaif 5y ago
      > You may personally prefer it just as some niche audience still personally prefers to run their own email server, but your grandma will never prefer it or use it and neither will 90% of the public. I think this is just not true, my grandmother would use whatever I tell her to use she doesn't care if Signal has "better UI" according to some people. The reason in my opinion why people don't use Element or other Matrix clients yet is because people aren't aware of them. Signal has a billionaire behind them and that means they advertise the shit out of Signal. > Email is an example of this class of failure. Almost everyone uses a centralized provider (mostly Google) and even if you do go through the effort to run your own server since nearly everyone you interact with is using gmail it's mostly pointless anyway. Why can't Moxie and Signal just run a Matrix server and offer this service to people? Your point seems to be - we lost the fight already so there's nothing to do. I think there's a lot to do and Google/Facebook/Apple have not yet won. Even if they have most people at least the people who really care have the opportunity to stay private AND free. Many people still use Hotmail, Yahoo, university accounts, business accounts, privacy concerned providers, government accounts and even famous country specific providers. Gmail is the most used one but it's by far not the only one and the way to fight that is not by giving up on a free world. > Signal is not controlled by the USG (see recent doc about what metadata they have access to via Signal). Signal is a company registered in the USA they will have to abide the US law when push comes to shove, so this is not a long term solution. > I ran a Matrix server for a while, the UX around setting up encryption is bad (not for lack of trying, it's just a hard problem given the constraints). It's getting better and it's partially like that because it's more private(no phone number) and secure(no US company) than Signal, it also contains an encrypted backup on the server which is a huge feature that Signal just does not have. > Most people just use the Matrix.org server and will never run their own (which is the recentralization risk I'm talking about) - at best you'll have a couple providers Most people use WhatsApp maybe Telegram, not Signal and definitely not Matrix the future will tell us if this catches on or not, so let's just stop speculating. There is already now some governments using Matrix and a lot of projects, so there are already many servers and many providers, you can also just pay for your own server at Element and you're already not using Matrix.org > and dealing with spam is still a problem. That's a general problem that you'll have with any platform, Telegram and Facebook are still fighting spam with little many failures. If anything this is something that I see a good future with Matrix since a lot of different companies/individuals will try to fight this together instead of a big company trying alone and failing. > You'll also have a system that adapts slowly because it's harder to make changes to this kind of system, it'll always be worse. Or better because many people are working on it compared to 30 people (!!) > To escape the incentives that lead back to recentralization and to create a federated system that isn't just another niche nerd hobby, you really have to think about the issues that lead back to centralization from first principles. I think Urbit's design and the tradeoffs they make do this. I heard of this project before, it sounded cool at the time but I didn't get enough info the details to remember much, I don't really understand how this is relevant though, care to elaborate? I don't think Element or Matrix is aiming to be a niche nerd hobby, they have a lot of money invested in them (last I read it was 30 million) and the UI is super cool (much cooler than Signal) At the end of the day Signal and Matrix are both niche and it's just such a pity that we don't go for the obviously better choice but instead put all our eggs in one American basket yet again.
- rglullis 5y ago
  The "problem" of federated systems is that it dilutes power across businesses and does not allow any single entity to control the ecosystem. This is a good thing, except that it makes it harder to fight head-to-head with trillion dollar companies that use messaging platforms as loss leaders. Thing is, Signal has the exact same issue: the top post of this thread is about how people are feeling compelled to donate to Signal so that it does not rely on one kind benefactor. If people want to donate to Signal, why not donate/hedge a bit by donating to Matrix or to the Conversations (the best XMPP client) developers? > Signal is the best available option imo for most people. Signal is still centralized. It is "open source" only in name, as the client code was constantly out-of-date and it is basically impossible to fork it or run your own server. It has a very poor record cross-client vulnerabilities and it forces everyone to be dependent on the security of their smartphones. How many times do we have to re-learn not to put all of our eggs in the same basket?
  - gonehome 5y ago
    We agree on the issues, but don't agree on the solution. I don't think Matrix will be able to compete. I think Signal is the best available option today for most people, but the risks you outline are real. I think Urbit is our best shot at a better future.
    - rglullis 5y ago
      > I don't think Matrix will be able to compete Matrix is already competing. It's just taking a different strategy (going after governmental institutions and enterprises) than the one you'd like. The fact that Element is going after a market with a very long deployment/usage cycle makes me believe that Matrix has a lot more staying power than Signal. Signal is nice, but it all it takes is one catastrophic bug - or one Government pushing to break it, or some good amount of years with lots of developers on payroll without any real revenue - away from disappearing or selling out. > I think Urbit is our best shot at a better future. No. The problem to "fix" is not a technological one. It's socio-economical. When (if?) individuals and SMBs learn TANSTAAFL, we´ll be able to have a diverse/healthy (and cheap) industry of professional service providers.
- kitkat_new 5y ago
  > I think Moxie is right, federation will lead back to recentralized services (for the reasons Moxie outlines in his recent Web3 post). it does not, see Email
  - gonehome 5y ago
    Email is centralized on a handful of providers (mostly gmail).
    - chagaif 5y ago
      Email is decentralized. Most people (including me) decided to sell their data for a better service which is why we ended up with Gmail and a few other services that are very popular. If Google and the other services are forced by law to not be allowed to do that we could easily just create an account in the thousands of not millions of email providers that offer alternatives, if Signal goes down, we all have to go back to WhatsApp.
      - gonehome 5y ago
        Even in the hypothetical case of this law leading to google not providing email (neither of which I think would happen) you'd just end up on some other server run by some other corporation with all of the risks that entails. You could argue that's better than trusting one service (debatable imo), but you're still a thin client vulnerable to the whims and data protection capabilities of that provider. Even worse, if everyone is using just 3 or so main providers then since you're communicating with people centralized primarily on these other services you're also vulnerable to their security practices too. All of this is because of a few core problems with the current stack. Linux servers are too hard to run. Modern dependency requirements are a mess, operating systems were designed without an eye toward the web or identity so spam is a problem. You can't fix this without thinking more deeply about these issues, I think Urbit might be a way out. Without fixing these issues the options available in the current system are niche communities or centralized services. The idea of people running their own decentralized nodes at scale given these constraints is dead on arrival. PGP is a failure - even when people's lives literally depend on it they cannot or will not do it. Trust me, I wish this wasn't the case - but I care about winning more than I care about idealistic purity. You have to think pragmatically about what the best option is today and what crazy changes are required for this to succeed in the future. Today with the existing tech stack I think Signal is the best we can do at scale in competition with whatsapp, fb messenger, and iMessage. Tomorrow I hope urbit gives us a way out.
- hammyhavoc 5y ago
  Uh, on-device servers are a thing for Matrix. These aren't your grandpa's servers that live in a 19" rack, or even your mom's server that's an off-the-shelf consumer-grade NAS. Matrix is shooting for portable identities. Matrix is planning to do Bluetooth BLE mesh nets too for offline usage.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    Yeah - I saw they were working on that, I think that's a smart approach.

goodpoint 5y ago

User lock-in is not just a glitch. It's the whole reason why people invested in signal. It's yet another walled garden masked as an open source no-profit.

gonehome 5y ago

Moxie's post that your Matrix link was a response to: https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ I think Moxie is right, federation will lead back to recentralized services (for the reasons Moxie outlines in his recent Web3 post). People don't want to run their own servers. In that world you'll have federated services that are mostly centralized with a much worse user experience than centralized competition. Signal's real competition isn't Matrix, it's FB messenger, Whatsapp, and iMessage. The incentive failures are actually upstream from the application layer of the web. Running a linux server is too hard, spam and auth are issues with the current tech stack, dependencies are a mess of complexity and federated systems built on the current stack can't really solve these issues so end up recentralizing to sysadmins that do (at best). This is the reason I started working on Urbit, I think to fix this for real you have to fix problems farther up the stack. Given the current landscape, Signal is the best available option imo for most people. Hopefully if Urbit succeeds we can have the federated system we want with UX that's actually competitive.

chagaif 5y ago
I prefer the Element UX especially since I can actually use it for WhatsApp/Telegram which I still use heavily, there are a lot of people/businesses/governments backing on Matrix, Signal is just another app that is controlled by the US government and I don't see much privacy there in the long term... Yes it will be recentralized but not completely, how come E-Mail did so good?
- gonehome 5y ago
  You may personally prefer it just as some niche audience still personally prefers to run their own email server, but your grandma will never prefer it or use it and neither will 90% of the public. Email is an example of this class of failure. Almost everyone uses a centralized provider (mostly Google) and even if you do go through the effort to run your own server since nearly everyone you interact with is using gmail it's mostly pointless anyway. Signal is not controlled by the USG (see recent doc about what metadata they have access to via Signal). I ran a Matrix server for a while, the UX around setting up encryption is bad (not for lack of trying, it's just a hard problem given the constraints). Most people just use the Matrix.org server and will never run their own (which is the recentralization risk I'm talking about) - at best you'll have a couple providers, and dealing with spam is still a problem. You'll also have a system that adapts slowly because it's harder to make changes to this kind of system, it'll always be worse. To escape the incentives that lead back to recentralization and to create a federated system that isn't just another niche nerd hobby, you really have to think about the issues that lead back to centralization from first principles. I think Urbit's design and the tradeoffs they make do this. https://moronlab.blogspot.com/2010/01/urbit-functional-programming-from.html https://moronlab.blogspot.com/2010/01/urbit-functional-progr... https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit
  - rglullis 5y ago
    > You may personally prefer it just as some niche audience still personally prefers to run their own email server. No. This is a false dichotomy. There is a very healthy market for email service providers. Basically every domain registrar runs one, a good amount of ISPs... there can be a cottage industry for service providers. > Almost everyone uses a centralized provider Because the large companies make it free to try to make their money by either exploiting the data or by using the email service as a loss leader. Signal can not do either, so they will have to rely on some other revenue stream, or they will end up like Mozilla.
  - chagaif 5y ago
    > You may personally prefer it just as some niche audience still personally prefers to run their own email server, but your grandma will never prefer it or use it and neither will 90% of the public. I think this is just not true, my grandmother would use whatever I tell her to use she doesn't care if Signal has "better UI" according to some people. The reason in my opinion why people don't use Element or other Matrix clients yet is because people aren't aware of them. Signal has a billionaire behind them and that means they advertise the shit out of Signal. > Email is an example of this class of failure. Almost everyone uses a centralized provider (mostly Google) and even if you do go through the effort to run your own server since nearly everyone you interact with is using gmail it's mostly pointless anyway. Why can't Moxie and Signal just run a Matrix server and offer this service to people? Your point seems to be - we lost the fight already so there's nothing to do. I think there's a lot to do and Google/Facebook/Apple have not yet won. Even if they have most people at least the people who really care have the opportunity to stay private AND free. Many people still use Hotmail, Yahoo, university accounts, business accounts, privacy concerned providers, government accounts and even famous country specific providers. Gmail is the most used one but it's by far not the only one and the way to fight that is not by giving up on a free world. > Signal is not controlled by the USG (see recent doc about what metadata they have access to via Signal). Signal is a company registered in the USA they will have to abide the US law when push comes to shove, so this is not a long term solution. > I ran a Matrix server for a while, the UX around setting up encryption is bad (not for lack of trying, it's just a hard problem given the constraints). It's getting better and it's partially like that because it's more private(no phone number) and secure(no US company) than Signal, it also contains an encrypted backup on the server which is a huge feature that Signal just does not have. > Most people just use the Matrix.org server and will never run their own (which is the recentralization risk I'm talking about) - at best you'll have a couple providers Most people use WhatsApp maybe Telegram, not Signal and definitely not Matrix the future will tell us if this catches on or not, so let's just stop speculating. There is already now some governments using Matrix and a lot of projects, so there are already many servers and many providers, you can also just pay for your own server at Element and you're already not using Matrix.org > and dealing with spam is still a problem. That's a general problem that you'll have with any platform, Telegram and Facebook are still fighting spam with little many failures. If anything this is something that I see a good future with Matrix since a lot of different companies/individuals will try to fight this together instead of a big company trying alone and failing. > You'll also have a system that adapts slowly because it's harder to make changes to this kind of system, it'll always be worse. Or better because many people are working on it compared to 30 people (!!) > To escape the incentives that lead back to recentralization and to create a federated system that isn't just another niche nerd hobby, you really have to think about the issues that lead back to centralization from first principles. I think Urbit's design and the tradeoffs they make do this. I heard of this project before, it sounded cool at the time but I didn't get enough info the details to remember much, I don't really understand how this is relevant though, care to elaborate? I don't think Element or Matrix is aiming to be a niche nerd hobby, they have a lot of money invested in them (last I read it was 30 million) and the UI is super cool (much cooler than Signal) At the end of the day Signal and Matrix are both niche and it's just such a pity that we don't go for the obviously better choice but instead put all our eggs in one American basket yet again.
rglullis 5y ago
The "problem" of federated systems is that it dilutes power across businesses and does not allow any single entity to control the ecosystem. This is a good thing, except that it makes it harder to fight head-to-head with trillion dollar companies that use messaging platforms as loss leaders. Thing is, Signal has the exact same issue: the top post of this thread is about how people are feeling compelled to donate to Signal so that it does not rely on one kind benefactor. If people want to donate to Signal, why not donate/hedge a bit by donating to Matrix or to the Conversations (the best XMPP client) developers? > Signal is the best available option imo for most people. Signal is still centralized. It is "open source" only in name, as the client code was constantly out-of-date and it is basically impossible to fork it or run your own server. It has a very poor record cross-client vulnerabilities and it forces everyone to be dependent on the security of their smartphones. How many times do we have to re-learn not to put all of our eggs in the same basket?
- gonehome 5y ago
  We agree on the issues, but don't agree on the solution. I don't think Matrix will be able to compete. I think Signal is the best available option today for most people, but the risks you outline are real. I think Urbit is our best shot at a better future.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    > I don't think Matrix will be able to compete Matrix is already competing. It's just taking a different strategy (going after governmental institutions and enterprises) than the one you'd like. The fact that Element is going after a market with a very long deployment/usage cycle makes me believe that Matrix has a lot more staying power than Signal. Signal is nice, but it all it takes is one catastrophic bug - or one Government pushing to break it, or some good amount of years with lots of developers on payroll without any real revenue - away from disappearing or selling out. > I think Urbit is our best shot at a better future. No. The problem to "fix" is not a technological one. It's socio-economical. When (if?) individuals and SMBs learn TANSTAAFL, we´ll be able to have a diverse/healthy (and cheap) industry of professional service providers.
kitkat_new 5y ago
> I think Moxie is right, federation will lead back to recentralized services (for the reasons Moxie outlines in his recent Web3 post). it does not, see Email
- gonehome 5y ago
  Email is centralized on a handful of providers (mostly gmail).
  - chagaif 5y ago
    Email is decentralized. Most people (including me) decided to sell their data for a better service which is why we ended up with Gmail and a few other services that are very popular. If Google and the other services are forced by law to not be allowed to do that we could easily just create an account in the thousands of not millions of email providers that offer alternatives, if Signal goes down, we all have to go back to WhatsApp.
    - gonehome 5y ago
      Even in the hypothetical case of this law leading to google not providing email (neither of which I think would happen) you'd just end up on some other server run by some other corporation with all of the risks that entails. You could argue that's better than trusting one service (debatable imo), but you're still a thin client vulnerable to the whims and data protection capabilities of that provider. Even worse, if everyone is using just 3 or so main providers then since you're communicating with people centralized primarily on these other services you're also vulnerable to their security practices too. All of this is because of a few core problems with the current stack. Linux servers are too hard to run. Modern dependency requirements are a mess, operating systems were designed without an eye toward the web or identity so spam is a problem. You can't fix this without thinking more deeply about these issues, I think Urbit might be a way out. Without fixing these issues the options available in the current system are niche communities or centralized services. The idea of people running their own decentralized nodes at scale given these constraints is dead on arrival. PGP is a failure - even when people's lives literally depend on it they cannot or will not do it. Trust me, I wish this wasn't the case - but I care about winning more than I care about idealistic purity. You have to think pragmatically about what the best option is today and what crazy changes are required for this to succeed in the future. Today with the existing tech stack I think Signal is the best we can do at scale in competition with whatsapp, fb messenger, and iMessage. Tomorrow I hope urbit gives us a way out.
hammyhavoc 5y ago
Uh, on-device servers are a thing for Matrix. These aren't your grandpa's servers that live in a 19" rack, or even your mom's server that's an off-the-shelf consumer-grade NAS. Matrix is shooting for portable identities. Matrix is planning to do Bluetooth BLE mesh nets too for offline usage.
- gonehome 5y ago
  Yeah - I saw they were working on that, I think that's a smart approach.