4 ms·

Maybe anything that requires knowledge of the whole network would be pretty difficult. For example, showing the full list of the photos that are being posted. Y

Maybe anything that requires knowledge of the whole network would be pretty difficult. For example, showing the full list of the photos that are being posted. You can't just follow every user that posts photos. The best solution that comes to mind now is building a server with a database of all the users and their respective servers. But, of course, that would break the decentralized purpose of Tent. It's an interesting problem to solve. EDIT: Another big problem, how do I search users? A DNS-like solution would be feasible?

icebraining 14y ago
A DNS requires people to agree about who owns a certain identifier, which would be problematic in a decentralized system (though there are proposals like namecoin). I think a better system could be publishing a triple (name, keyfingerprint, current-server) on a shared datastore (e.g. DHT). The user doing the search would still need to find some out-of-protocol way to identify the right person, though. EDIT: Kadmelia on Emule is a working implementation of a similar system to what I described, but for files instead of users.
- yesbabyyes 14y ago
  Telehash would be pretty for the messaging, too. ;) http://telehash.org http://telehash.org
  - nmcfarl 14y ago
    Telehash discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4420634 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4420634 - hopefully :)
- exact-ly 14y ago
  Yes. The "keyfingerprint" might be the server's public key for purposes of end-to-end security of the connection. (No more SSL! There's better libraries now.) cjdns has a simple approach: your tcp6 address is your public key. This the right idea. Leverage what you already have that is unique (not to imply IP address is necessarily truly unique, e.g., anycast). But in general to be on the network, you have to at least one unique item: your network address. So leverage that to make other unique identifiers. To encrypt communications, you may need to maintin encryption keys. So leverage them to be part of each peer's unique identifier on the network. Connecting to strangers, and only using the network to get each and every bit of infromation from the outside world, is all fine and good, but this sort of peer-to-peer networking is much more valuable with peers who you can identify in person. Without using a computer. You can exchange all the above numbers (identifiers) on business cards.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Personally, I don't like the network address as id, for two reasons; firstly, you don't control it, your network provider does (whoever that is - the server or ISP does). So if that entity wants, they can boot you off and pretend to be you. Secondly, it ties you to them; what happens if you switch servers, or ISP, or whatever? I mean, right now I'm planning on switching to a cheaper, faster offer from another ISP, but I wouldn't do it if I were to lose all access to my accounts on the different services. I think the id should be both controlled by the user and portable; that mostly leaves public keys and their fingerprints as ids.
    - gizzlon 14y ago
      So if that entity wants, they can boot you off and pretend to be you. They could shut you down, but I don't think they could pretend to be you since they don't have your private key..
      - icebraining 14y ago
        That's my point; it's why I prefer public/private keys as ids instead of network addresses.

icebraining 14y ago

A DNS requires people to agree about who owns a certain identifier, which would be problematic in a decentralized system (though there are proposals like namecoin). I think a better system could be publishing a triple (name, keyfingerprint, current-server) on a shared datastore (e.g. DHT). The user doing the search would still need to find some out-of-protocol way to identify the right person, though. EDIT: Kadmelia on Emule is a working implementation of a similar system to what I described, but for files instead of users.

yesbabyyes 14y ago
Telehash would be pretty for the messaging, too. ;) http://telehash.org http://telehash.org
- nmcfarl 14y ago
  Telehash discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4420634 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4420634 - hopefully :)
exact-ly 14y ago
Yes. The "keyfingerprint" might be the server's public key for purposes of end-to-end security of the connection. (No more SSL! There's better libraries now.) cjdns has a simple approach: your tcp6 address is your public key. This the right idea. Leverage what you already have that is unique (not to imply IP address is necessarily truly unique, e.g., anycast). But in general to be on the network, you have to at least one unique item: your network address. So leverage that to make other unique identifiers. To encrypt communications, you may need to maintin encryption keys. So leverage them to be part of each peer's unique identifier on the network. Connecting to strangers, and only using the network to get each and every bit of infromation from the outside world, is all fine and good, but this sort of peer-to-peer networking is much more valuable with peers who you can identify in person. Without using a computer. You can exchange all the above numbers (identifiers) on business cards.
- icebraining 14y ago
  Personally, I don't like the network address as id, for two reasons; firstly, you don't control it, your network provider does (whoever that is - the server or ISP does). So if that entity wants, they can boot you off and pretend to be you. Secondly, it ties you to them; what happens if you switch servers, or ISP, or whatever? I mean, right now I'm planning on switching to a cheaper, faster offer from another ISP, but I wouldn't do it if I were to lose all access to my accounts on the different services. I think the id should be both controlled by the user and portable; that mostly leaves public keys and their fingerprints as ids.
  - gizzlon 14y ago
    So if that entity wants, they can boot you off and pretend to be you. They could shut you down, but I don't think they could pretend to be you since they don't have your private key..
    - icebraining 14y ago
      That's my point; it's why I prefer public/private keys as ids instead of network addresses.