On 02/02/16 17:24, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm the maintainer of Web of Trust [2] and Freetalk [3], which are the first 
> systems which will likely be deployed as installed by default for purposes 
> subject to what you proposed with PSKs.

As I understand it, Sadao is interested primarily in writing his own
incompatible forums system with centralised moderation (i.e. the ability
to remove users), at least as a first step?
>
> While I admittedly didn't take the time to fully understand all details PSKs, 
> I think I can nevertheless speculate the following about their general 
> concept:
>
> There are a lot of systems based on WoT already: Freetalk, Freemail, Sone, 
> FlogHelper, WoTNS, Infocalypse, and the ones I forgot about at [1].
> They share a common concept: If content is downloaded, it is downloaded from 
> the very same person responsible for it. This is to allow WoT to fulfill its 
> purpose of spam filtering by saying "person X is not trustworthy anymore" and 
> causing the content to be deleted then. I.e. we know who is to blame for 
> spam, 
> so we can just delete his stuff.

We still know who posted something with PSKs. That's why we need a new
key type: You can post if your key is signed by the owner's key (at
least in Sadao's original proposal).
> With PSKs, that principle wouldn't apply anymore, there would be many people 
> who have access to one keyspace, there wouldn't just one person be to blame 
> for spam.
> This is a very disruptive change to architecture and thus would likely not 
> work with the existing foundation of all the existing WoT systems and cause 
> their 'core' to have to be rewritten.
> So what I'm trying to say is: This would be *years* of work.

I agree it would be a lot of work to adapt WoT to use PSKs. Mainly
because of the complexity of creating groups of identities, detecting
misuse of owner powers etc, all automatically.
> And we've already spent years on WoT-based systems and they still aren't 
> finished to the point where we can ship them as default with the installer.
> So I am preferring to finish WoT and its client applications with their 
> architecture as is, because the users want to finally see results.
> Rewriting everything for yet another half a decade without having any 
> officially-installed-by-default forum system is not an option :(
> And especially: The bugtracker contains sufficient ideas to make WoT and the 
> apps based on it scalable, so there doesn't seem to be a need to pull out the 
> optimization which PSKs are just yet. It is a lot more complex than the known 
> optimizations, since it requires throwing everything we have away. The known 
> ones would just improve upon systems as they are, they don't require as much 
> work.

I don't see why it would require "throwing everything away". In any
case, Sadao is perfectly entitled to build his own forums system. But as
I've explained I don't have time to implement PSKs at the moment; maybe
he will be able to. Of course he could work on something else, and that
might be more productive, but if he wants to implement PSKs, that's a
good thing.
> Sorry.
>
> I'm nevertheless glad for your idea of PSKs,and it can for sure be an option 
> some day. Just please not now.
> I'd rather wait for this until:
> 1) WoT and a few apps based on it are finished and deployed.
> 2) it turnes out in benchmarks that the simple optimizations did not help 
> enough.
>
> Meanwhile, if you do want to contribute some code to Freenet, notice this:
> Nowadays, at [1], we've gathered a *huge* list of all known subprojects. This 
> should be a good tool to find something to work on! :)
> Once you've found something, it would be nice if you could join us on 
> Freenode 
> IRC at #freenet. Most developer communication happens there.
>
>
> Greetings and thanks for your returning! :)
>
>
> [1] https://wiki.freenetproject.org/Projects
> [2] https://wiki.freenetproject.org/Web_of_Trust
> [3] https://wiki.freenetproject.org/Freetalk

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Reply via email to