this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
53 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
37716 readers
266 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I disagree here. with p2p/federated you have to worry about if your microprovider goes out. I think blockchain would be a useful way to keep a users preferences and to keep usernames distinct.
This Quarks protocol still seems to require reliance on "nodes," which is the same thing as a federated service, with extra steps. It's more overhead without any of the portability you want.
oh sorry. I was not saying in general, not that this implementation is good. I could see the distributed ledger being used though to good effect. Unfortunately it rarely is.
p2p has no middle man. There's nothing to go out. Blockchain is a literal plague, especially in this scenario when a simple database can handle this. MXIDs already provide distinct usernames. Preferences are often stores client side.
You do not need to burn a tree, push a Ponzi scheme, and make this data permanently public to solve this. That is a terrible idea, and any solution you come up with will be always better without a Blockchain.
I don't think you get it. With a distributed ledger your username could be unique. sorta like the digital art pieces. So if your instance goes down you register at another one with your token and it recognizes you and associates you with everything it conceivably can (some stuff may only have been saved on the instance which is gone). So if the new instance has magazines you interacted with it should still be able to see comments as yours and such.
Buddy wait until you hear about pgp keys or identity keys in general. No ponzi scheme and tree burning required!
Again, there's always a solution that's better and doesn't need the blockchain. Blockchain is literally never the answer unless you're trying to kill the environment and scam others all in one go.
The blockchain Is not public. It can only be accessed by nodes whose members are in the channel.
I'm curious whether without a blockchain there is a solution that (a) allows users to access all their encrypted messages even if any individual server goes down, (b) preserves a record of all communications/edits, and (c) is resistant to record tampering by a malicious server admin.
So, federation across channel participants, but with blockchain instead of a "shared database"?
Yes, that sounds like their goal.
Blockchain is used to prevent a malicious participant from altering/corrupting records.
Yeah it's called storing things client side lol.
Also the whole point of encryption is that it can't be tampered with by a middle man. We've accomplished all of that already.
Storing client side isn't good enough, your records could be lost or destroyed. That's why people use Gmail.
And it's not just third parties, what about untrusted recipients? For example, how do you prove you sent someone a message on a decentralized system?
you can store things encrypted
also do you know what identity keys are? We've solved that decades ago with pgp keys lol
Even if it's encrypted, it can be lost or destroyed if it's stored client side.
I know what identity keys are, but they don't solve the problem. If someone says they didn't receive your message, the best way to prove you successfully sent it is to use a distributed ledger.
Yes there is??? Do you know what a read receipt is?
Again, storing messages on the blockchain is a fucking terrible idea. I don't need to store the dumb memes my friends send to each other eternally on the blockchain, nor does anyone give a shit. If it's important enough to want to be saved, you do this new technique called a damn backup.
I don't want to open myself up to my key getting hacked and my entire life history's messages getting leaked. I don't want to open myself to someone stealing my device where my key is stored and having indefinite access to all my past, present, and future data. I don't want to leave my data publicly available with all the metadata and message sizes to see for any unknown third parry, and to who is being sent what to whom. I don't want to be vulnerable to potential encryption breaking techniques in the future. I don't want to deal with the gas cost, the huge amount of latency that would make real time chat unviable, and the insane amount of overhead to solve an already solved problem with an objectively worse solution in every possible way.
These are problems that don't need to be solved with blockchain. Every problem you're suggesting has been solved decades ago and for absolutely free. You are dense as hell and aren't even attempting to look at the already existing technology that has already solved this. Fuck out of here crypto bro.
That doesn't solve the problem. If you don't get a read receipt, then you can't prove you sent the message. And if the recipient doesn't want you to be able to prove you sent a message, they can disable sending read receipts.
This sort of system is not meant for your use case. It is not meant for memes or other things nobody cares about. It is meant for people who need an auditable permanent copy of their communication.
For example, businesses sending orders, contracts, etc to each other. Or lawyers sending documents to each other. They need systems that are private, not susceptible to central server failure, yet nevertheless auditable in case of an untrustworthy recipient.
If a lawyer sends a time-sensitive letter to opposing counsel, the recipient must not be able to claim, "You did not send it to me on time". Blockchain is a good solution for such needs.
Did you read the paper? This isn't Bitcoin. The metadata is not available to the public.
This is such an obscure situation that doesn't even need to be solved with blockchain. Look at the article being posted. "Messaging network for safer communications", which now apparently turns to just a single situation where a lawyer needs to send a time sensitive email and needs to prove it was sent? Which again, doesn't actually even solve the problem. In this case, your blockchain ponzi scheme email can easily get caught by a spam filter. You've now turned the use case to some global read receipt system, which is dumb as hell and something nobody needs.
This use case literally does not exist. It can also be solved by a simple email server. A business that wants to keep logs of all their messages being sent out or received can store everything on their server with inbound or outbound emails. If in the super extreme scenario where a lawyer sends an email and the counsel ignores it, they can get in a lot of legal trouble for lying and would just get delayed. They lawyer can also prove they sent an outbound copy on their email server. What do you think needs to be "auditable" in communication? A business sending a damn receipt does not need this solution, that's the end user for their email being valid. A lawyer sending private documents to each other want the literal last thing to be on a fucking public cloud server that is invisibly accessible by any fucking third party. Do you hear yourself? Are you a real person??
Literally none of these obscure scenarios you're trying to come up with even need a blockchain solution. You should recognize how hard you're trying to justify this as it being a dumb fuck solution. Despite all these issues you're apparently inventing, we use our existing technology every day and none of these are issues. You're coming off more like ChatGPT then a normal person.
Same thing with centralised services only that you have no options to choose from