Re: [SocialSwarm-D] D-CENT: state of the art - not

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:16:51AM +0100, Harry Halpin wrote:
> P2P Internet-level neteworks are great for some use-cases, not for
> others. For example, the only way to counter sybil attacks on p2p is
> via institutional trust arrangements (i.e. a non-technical

Hm, you have a way of stating your opinions as if they were facts.
Reminds me of me, but I am trying to not let that happen anymore.

> solution), of which one example is social networks. The so-called
> "sybil-proof" trust frameworks do so by routing via a social network
> exposing the social networks (at least within X hops) of the user.
> That may work in some situations, but then leaks valuable social
> network metadata. There's also latency issues which generally cause

Which is perfectly fine in a social network which is entirely
within that system and only visible to the people you have
added as first or second degree friends. Although I doubt that
"social" is the only possible solution strategy - GNUnet currently
uses automated reputation/scoring systems if I am not mistaken.
So that metadata argumentation is a bit aimed from the hip.

> most p2p networks to evolve to scale-free nets to minimize the
> number of hops. The Web is technically a client-server system due to
> scalability (see Fielding's REST work). This is all very well-known.

Since "This is all very well-known" has been disproven in previous
mails it is legitimate to investigate. Modern P2P systems use relay
nodes in the Internet backbone, thus scalability is just a question
of developing similar distribution technology as is being used in
distributed web server architectures ("the cloud"). That's what we
do with secushare. So the advantages of the client-server are
maintained, yet the disadvantages are not, because in a relay server
network it doesn't matter which one you pick and it doesn't know
what it is doing for you. Maybe we get to chat with Roy tomorrow at
STRINT on the topic.

> In summary, I suspect that the W3C will continue to focus on the
> Web, at least as regards standardization. Building a new Internet
> etc. is out of scope. However, best of luck with all other
> approaches and keep us up to date (particularly when adoption takes
> off).

Received on Thursday, 27 February 2014 15:13:01 UTC