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

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 08:15:47PM +0100, Harry Halpin wrote:
> No, I am arguing that your cited  "fixes" to the sybil attacks were
> social fixes rather than technical ones (and one's that expose the
> user's social graph usually at that for traffic routing, which at
> least for me is an unacceptable tradeoff in terms of privacy).

Tor doesn't exactly do that, to name an obvious counter-example.

> I support data portability, privacy, and the user's right to chose
> their own place to store data. Standards exist for interoperability
> between systems, and thus would give users the ability to trust
> whatever system they wanted. Again, users will vote with their feet

No need to entrust any server with cleartext data. The idea of
trusting servers has failed, but users are usually pretty bad at
choosing with their feet what's good for them.

> if any system reaches maturity. Standards generally exist between
> systems that would otherwise be mutually incompatible and that
> already have user-bases in order to give users more freedom.

Since none of them are secure it makes no sense to include them
in the process. People can migrate to safer technologies.

> >Whereas you could imagine that people do not have a problem
> >to entrust the social graph with protecting social graph
> >information (aka transaction metadata), as that is a quite
> >reasonable choice they make in their daily lives each day.
> 
> Of course, we support standards. However, the Web is not a p2p
> system, if a p2p system is strictly designed as one in which any
> node can *directly* connect with any other. It's client-server. Same
> with Tor (i.e. you access Tor relays via installing a Tor client).
> If you wish to define p2p in another way, that's fine but explain
> your usage, as often the term is thrown around in vague ways.

Yes, I don't consider these advanced distributed routing systems
"P2P" but the DHT does come from that historical background.
Don't remember who started talking of P2P, I remember it starting
out talking about how D-CENT is being vague technically in its
paperwork yet quite successful politically.

> In general, claiming like "sybil-proof routing" and then claim
> without regards to the needs of actual users is unlikely to be
> helpful in communicating to people who don't have an ideological or

That's humbug. Protecting the social graph is our main aim.
You are claiming that can't be done, and that is news to me -
coming from someone who isn't working with that technology.

> personal reason for claiming a single approach or system is a "magic
> bullet", and is generally not the approach taken by those with
> expertise. For example, people from Tor do not claim their system is
> a "magic bullet" but useful for bursty-traffic like Web-browser
> traffic against a non-global adversary.

I have not claimed any magic bullet. I say there is a new paradigm
and the old one is so broken, we have no other choice than to make
the new one work.

-- 
	    http://youbroketheinternet.org
 ircs://psyced.org/youbroketheinternet

Received on Thursday, 27 February 2014 23:37:45 UTC