22 ms·
You can invent all the protocols you want, but the more difficult and obscure the protocol is, the less usability and availability it will achieve, then less us
by xfs 14y ago
You can invent all the protocols you want, but the more difficult and obscure the protocol is, the less usability and availability it will achieve, then less users, less traction, and less anonymity.
So the question isn't solely theoretical. The protocol has to be simple enough to gain a sizable user base as its safety net, but also sophisticated enough to withstand certain level of attack. That sweet spot is hard to hit.
- brownbat 14y ago> but the more difficult and obscure the protocol is It only looks difficult and obscure because I (stupidly) wrote it as a protocol. I could/should have just said that users could shuffle what they have on a given service faster than takedown requests come in. They might do this naturally, as a consequence of overzealous takedowns against encrypted blobs on MEGA. More to your point, Usenet and XDCC have maintained vibrant communities, despite being difficult to use, but on an even more popular level, Bittorrent has incredible popularity and surprising staying power. Sophistication of an underlying protocol isn't really strongly connected to ultimate ease of use.