User Controls

Decentralization, P2P, Federation, Blockchain and other stuff

  1. #1
    death Yung Blood
    Share programs, whitepapers and anything related.
  2. #2
    aldra JIDF Controlled Opposition
    disappointing thread you nigger
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  3. #3
    death Yung Blood
    Originally posted by aldra disappointing thread you nigger

    OK, FUCK YOU!

    I'll share some shit then.

    https://yggdrasil-network.github.io/
    https://lokinet.org/
    https://xmpp.org/
    https://writefreely.org/
    https://matrix.org/
    https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/
    https://gemini.circumlunar.space/
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  4. #4
    Sophie Pedophile Tech Support
    Lol. Ygg, for a second i thought the first link was your personal site.Thought you were someone else OP.
  5. #5
    www.teachat.com
  6. #6
    Bugz Space Nigga
    Originally posted by death Share programs, whitepapers and anything related.

    I dont want to rid the feds. just clean it up.

    umm Aliens exist apparently. share what?
  7. #7
    Kev African Astronaut
    Originally posted by death OK, FUCK YOU!

    I'll share some shit then.

    https://yggdrasil-network.github.io/
    https://lokinet.org/
    https://xmpp.org/
    https://writefreely.org/
    https://matrix.org/
    https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/
    https://gemini.circumlunar.space/

    finally an interesting thread, thanks for all the links i bookmarked all of them. lokinet particularly piques me because they say they use the blockchain to continually maintain the network.

    my biggest problem with so called decentralized networks is that none of them are decentralized like they claim and all had a single point of failure, which unfortunately seemed inevitable because you have to rely on someone somewhere to be online 24/7 so you can find the network. lokinet may have solved this problem with the blockchain solution. if eveyrbody is verifying the transactions of some crypto then this is a neat way to motivate a horde of random users to continually maintain lokinet without even giving a fuck about lokinet.

    yggdasil, matrix and lokinet all seem to have the same basic idea, would you care to do a comparison rundown?

    also check out https://freenetproject.org/ i have been using it for 15 years watching the state department bust all the clueless morons on TOR from a safe distance, its an outstanding network the government is yet to successfully fuck with.
  8. #8
    Lanny motherfucker
    Originally posted by Kev my biggest problem with so called decentralized networks is that none of them are decentralized like they claim and all had a single point of failure, which unfortunately seemed inevitable because you have to rely on someone somewhere to be online 24/7 so you can find the network. lokinet may have solved this problem with the blockchain solution. if eveyrbody is verifying the transactions of some crypto then this is a neat way to motivate a horde of random users to continually maintain lokinet without even giving a fuck about lokinet.

    DHTs solved distributed addressing/resource location well before blockchain was ever a thing. There remain logistical issues of course, actually inducing nodes to a DHT requires knowing at least one other node. So like if you're building a bittorrent client you need to distribute your software with a list of known induction nodes, or provide a mechanism for finding induction nodes (which usually means a server that hands out addresses) so there is always going to be a finite number of failures which will render a given potential node unable to join the network. But that doesn't mean there's a single point of failure. It means depending on how the logistics of induction is handled there are between 1 and n nodes that need to fail to make non-nodes using _that specific induction strategy_ unable to join a network, but that's a very different thing from a single point of failure.
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  9. #9
    livingelegy African Astronaut [my polyoicous forward graciousness]
    These programs and protocols are used for child porn and basically nothing else. The "super secret" content that "they" don't want you to see that's hosted on these things could easily be hosted on a clearnet site in a free country, except for all the child porn.
  10. #10
    Kev African Astronaut
    Originally posted by livingelegy These programs and protocols are used for child porn and basically nothing else. The "super secret" content that "they" don't want you to see that's hosted on these things could easily be hosted on a clearnet site in a free country, except for all the child porn.

    Ah but child pornography is the "canary in the coal mine" of true freedom. When child porn exists on a network and cant be taken down, it proves you are safe there. If the child pornography disappears, then you should too. Wherever the American government succeeds in suppressing child pornography, you are next for whatever reason in your country. Child pornography is the vanguard of revolution.

    CHILD PORNOGRAPHY = FREEDOM
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  11. #11
    Kev African Astronaut
    Originally posted by Lanny DHTs solved distributed addressing/resource location well before blockchain was ever a thing. There remain logistical issues of course, actually inducing nodes to a DHT requires knowing at least one other node. So like if you're building a bittorrent client you need to distribute your software with a list of known induction nodes, or provide a mechanism for finding induction nodes (which usually means a server that hands out addresses) so there is always going to be a finite number of failures which will render a given potential node unable to join the network. But that doesn't mean there's a single point of failure. It means depending on how the logistics of induction is handled there are between 1 and n nodes that need to fail to make non-nodes using _that specific induction strategy_ unable to join a network, but that's a very different thing from a single point of failure.

    By single point of failure, i dont mean a single server. relying on 200 servers to maintain the network is better than reliyng on just one but thats not the point. having a million nodes be controlled by just a select few is investing in failure, thats a huge vulnerability.

    a network must be self-sustaining to be truly invincible and censorship resistant and so far i am yet to be convinced this is possible. right now the only "decentralized" part of any network is the payload, but not the access/distribution.
  12. #12
    Originally posted by Lanny DHTs solved distributed addressing/resource location well before blockchain was ever a thing. There remain logistical issues of course, actually inducing nodes to a DHT requires knowing at least one other node. So like if you're building a bittorrent client you need to distribute your software with a list of known induction nodes, or provide a mechanism for finding induction nodes (which usually means a server that hands out addresses) so there is always going to be a finite number of failures which will render a given potential node unable to join the network. But that doesn't mean there's a single point of failure. It means depending on how the logistics of induction is handled there are between 1 and n nodes that need to fail to make non-nodes using _that specific induction strategy_ unable to join a network, but that's a very different thing from a single point of failure.

    multiple points of failure then.
  13. #13
    Originally posted by Kev Ah but child pornography is the "canary in the coal mine" of true freedom. When child porn exists on a network and cant be taken down, it proves you are safe there. If the child pornography disappears, then you should too. Wherever the American government succeeds in suppressing child pornography, you are next for whatever reason in your country. Child pornography is the vanguard of revolution.

    CHILD PORNOGRAPHY = FREEDOM

    from now on child pornography will be known as Freedom Porn.

    si.
  14. #14
    Kev African Astronaut
    Originally posted by vindicktive vinny from now on child pornography will be known as Freedom Porn.

    si.

    lol, its not so much the porn aspect but the fact that nothing is pursued so vigorously by the government. the true test of any secure network is how fast CP will disappear upon being posted. when dissidents in despotic countries (or just simple copyright pirates) notice its secure enough to host CP, they know they can do their thang and undermine their governments, and that they will always be the second to be targeted at best. as soon as the CP starts disappearing, they have a head start to move onto a better network.

    but "freedom porn" lmao, next youll be telling me about "freedom fries"

    oh wait.
  15. #15
    Lanny motherfucker
    Originally posted by Kev By single point of failure, i dont mean a single server. relying on 200 servers to maintain the network is better than reliyng on just one but thats not the point. having a million nodes be controlled by just a select few is investing in failure, thats a huge vulnerability.

    Well again, look at DHTs. It’s not “a million nodes controlled by a few”, every node can bring another host onto the network, there need not be any privileged or controlling nodes. There is a number of nodes that can fail in order to partition the network, but no number less than the number of participants in the network that can fail to cause the full network to fail.
  16. #16
    Originally posted by Lanny Well again, look at DHTs. It’s not “a million nodes controlled by a few”, every node can bring another host onto the network, there need not be any privileged or controlling nodes. There is a number of nodes that can fail in order to partition the network, but no number less than the number of participants in the network that can fail to cause the full network to fail.

    what if they ban the protocol ?
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  17. #17
    Originally posted by Kev lol, its not so much the porn aspect but the fact that nothing is pursued so vigorously by the government. the true test of any secure network is how fast CP will disappear upon being posted. when dissidents in despotic countries (or just simple copyright pirates) notice its secure enough to host CP, they know they can do their thang and undermine their governments, and that they will always be the second to be targeted at best. as soon as the CP starts disappearing, they have a head start to move onto a better network.

    but "freedom porn" lmao, next youll be telling me about "freedom fries"

    oh wait.

    in the same way pedos are the true freedom fighters.

    if they can round up and persecute pedos, then they can do the same to any person for any reason the powers that be fancy.
  18. #18
    blackbird Tuskegee Airman
    Retroshare has always seem interesting to me.
  19. #19
    mashlehash victim of incest [my perspicuously dependant flavourlessness]
    good thread will check back
  20. #20
    Kev African Astronaut
    Originally posted by Lanny Well again, look at DHTs. It’s not “a million nodes controlled by a few”, every node can bring another host onto the network, there need not be any privileged or controlling nodes. There is a number of nodes that can fail in order to partition the network, but no number less than the number of participants in the network that can fail to cause the full network to fail.

    I never truly understood DHT, i tried releasing a torrent back in the day without trackers and no peers could connect to me, even my friend who downloaded the torrent got no connections. then a torrent site abolished trackers entirely, running purely on DHT and it was problematic because you never knew how many seeders or peers a torrent had which meant most were dead (or DHT was failing to connect peers together)

    partitioning a network is not good, this is how it will eventually fail unless a manually-coordinated permanent node comes to the rescue.
Jump to Top