3 ms·

How does this compare with Bluesky, which I understand also uses DIDs? https://blueskyweb.org/ https://blueskyweb.org/

erlend_sh 4y ago
..which builds on https://ucan.xyz/ https://ucan.xyz/ for auth. I’m also curious to learn what Chatter Net does differently, and whether that’s necessary.
- garrinm 4y ago
  For authenticating messages, Chatter Net uses Linked Data Proofs (https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-integrity/#proofs https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-integrity/#proofs). The JS client uses this implementation: https://github.com/digitalbazaar/crypto-ld https://github.com/digitalbazaar/crypto-ld. And the Rust server uses this one: https://github.com/spruceid/ssi https://github.com/spruceid/ssi. I hadn't seen ucan yet, I think the space of JWT adjacent protocols is growing, and I'll be interested to see where it all goes!
garrinm 4y ago
There are lots of similarities indeed. No idea exists on its own, and it is not surprising that there are many others trying to solve the same problems and arriving to similar conclusions. I would consider Chatter Net to be a parallel experiment exploring similar ideas. I think I can also address the elephant in the room: Bluesky is built by a team of (very likely talented) individuals. Chatter Net is, well, Chatter Net xD. The atproto project is very interesting to me, and part of the reason for pushing Chatter Net so early was to make sure its have a chance to be heard before the space becomes too crowded. At a high level I can spot a few differences in the approaches: - Chatter Net is smaller project focused much more on the data model, whereas atproto is more of a holistic solution specifying not just the data model but also how it should be shared and stored to some extent. - Chatter Net builds on the Activity Pub (and JSON-LD) standard whereas atproto introduces a new data format. The core ideas atproto are very similar to the ideas in Chatter Net. Those ideas are extended to touch on some complicated topic that Chatter Net is just starting to address (their big world vs. small world discussion). However, I'm not entirely sure yet how decentralized Bluesky (atproto) will be. In security the system is only as strong as its weakest link, and I think ultimately whether Bluesky is decentralized, federated, or run by a consortium will depend on: - how personal data servers are created / managed - how easy it is in practice for a user move between apps, servers etc. The signing key is not controlled by the user, but they do control a recovery key. If a platform changes direction or becomes otherwise incompatible with a user, I can imagine this system working out quite well, or it becoming akin to asking for your post history from one platform, and then manually uploading it to another and having to rebuild your network etc.

..which builds on https://ucan.xyz/ https://ucan.xyz/ for auth. I’m also curious to learn what Chatter Net does differently, and whether that’s necessary.

garrinm 4y ago
For authenticating messages, Chatter Net uses Linked Data Proofs (https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-integrity/#proofs https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-integrity/#proofs). The JS client uses this implementation: https://github.com/digitalbazaar/crypto-ld https://github.com/digitalbazaar/crypto-ld. And the Rust server uses this one: https://github.com/spruceid/ssi https://github.com/spruceid/ssi. I hadn't seen ucan yet, I think the space of JWT adjacent protocols is growing, and I'll be interested to see where it all goes!

garrinm 4y ago

There are lots of similarities indeed. No idea exists on its own, and it is not surprising that there are many others trying to solve the same problems and arriving to similar conclusions. I would consider Chatter Net to be a parallel experiment exploring similar ideas. I think I can also address the elephant in the room: Bluesky is built by a team of (very likely talented) individuals. Chatter Net is, well, Chatter Net xD. The atproto project is very interesting to me, and part of the reason for pushing Chatter Net so early was to make sure its have a chance to be heard before the space becomes too crowded. At a high level I can spot a few differences in the approaches: - Chatter Net is smaller project focused much more on the data model, whereas atproto is more of a holistic solution specifying not just the data model but also how it should be shared and stored to some extent. - Chatter Net builds on the Activity Pub (and JSON-LD) standard whereas atproto introduces a new data format. The core ideas atproto are very similar to the ideas in Chatter Net. Those ideas are extended to touch on some complicated topic that Chatter Net is just starting to address (their big world vs. small world discussion). However, I'm not entirely sure yet how decentralized Bluesky (atproto) will be. In security the system is only as strong as its weakest link, and I think ultimately whether Bluesky is decentralized, federated, or run by a consortium will depend on: - how personal data servers are created / managed - how easy it is in practice for a user move between apps, servers etc. The signing key is not controlled by the user, but they do control a recovery key. If a platform changes direction or becomes otherwise incompatible with a user, I can imagine this system working out quite well, or it becoming akin to asking for your post history from one platform, and then manually uploading it to another and having to rebuild your network etc.