On 25 July 2013 19:11, Klaus Wuestefeld <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm 100% with Marco. Forget friendly identifiers. Tor is already > playing with fire making its keys that short. > > Things will only get worse. With the advent of quantum computing we > are looking at public keys in the order of megabytes. > > We will all learn to keep address books like our grandmothers did for > unfriendly six digit phone numbers and street addresses. > > No big deal. >
Yes, this is true, but zooko's triangle only applies to a *single string*identity. In practice, identity is an OBJECT with facets. So you can have an email, a telephone, a real name, a public key, or whatever you want. In most cases there's no need to disambiguate, or even to remember anything. This is exactly how facebook does it, and it works perfectly. It's only when you pick ONE facet, and disallow all others that zooko's triangle comes into play. tl;dr this is only a problem for identifier overloading -- make identity a multi faceted object and have the best of all worlds > > Klaus > http://sneer.me > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Michael Rogers > <[email protected]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 25/07/13 11:10, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > >> I think maybe what you are getting at is that you think using > >> user@domain as the single identifier for a lot of different things > >> (email, chat, files, voip, social, etc) is a really bad idea. You > >> don't have to like it, but user@domain is still the most commonly > >> used identifier there is. To embrace it is hardly being intolerant, > >> it is just being practical and backward compatible. > >> > >> > >> Embracing email as part of a holistic identity strategy could be > >> practical. But if it's using email as the 'one identity to rule > >> them all' -- it's going to be fractured by nature. > > > > I don't think the suggestion is to use email addresses as universal > > identifiers, but simply to use the user@domain format, which is > > memorisable, easily recognised, and clearly represents the > > user/service provider relationship. > > > > However, using one format for multiple services is confusing - already > > I can't put my Jabber ID on my business card without explaining that > > it's not an email address. Perhaps it would be appropriate to use > > different separators for different services - user#domain, > > user*domain, etc? > > > > Cheers, > > Michael > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > > > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR8P2XAAoJEBEET9GfxSfMTBcIAKcxwJmhxQD3GqdggYZcL0QT > > KXlSJRuOZ/Y8L+97MRKTvSzOroNS5Gk6tIdv62V5OdPZGRejfqbYtFH6N94u7ApS > > ycIUCqxG83mLiDvb2I/5p7lANu60nV388OGfWlacqM2a5kYv5oB4N7f69Ci1LwCs > > rU5MiQ8Z1QQBYPvv3WAJnNoZjQdjG77f1GXYyRLYa37tvQaaK6DCUhrnSr8sTY5B > > N76fZDfOQJwu4Bdj/2r7H0tE+2IzkowEUYdCT//V75fCpyXRRd4SB6HYMk4jRJ1a > > y34UUiOKbCrshlw/N6McV31KzgkirLQONDpKM+ORdKlFKE+titArHwlUfOUnvso= > > =J38N > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > > SocialSwarm-DISCUSSION mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://mail.foebud.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/socialswarm-discussion > > > > Website : http://socialswarm.net/ > > Wiki : https://wiki.socialswarm.net > > Liquid Feedback: https://socialswarm.tracciabi.li > > > > All mailing lists for SocialSwarm: > > > > SocialSwarm-ANNOUNCE (Announcements only; no discussion) > > SocialSwarm-DISCUSSION (discussion list) > > SocialSwarm-TECH (discussion list for technik and coders) > > > > https://mail.foebud.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/socialswarm-announce > > https://mail.foebud.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/socialswarm-tech > > https://mail.foebud.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/socialswarm-discussion > > > > > > FoeBuD e.V. | Marktstrasse 18 | 33602 Bielefeld | Germany | > [email protected] > > > > -- > Valeu, Klaus. >
