I don't know much about it, but https://diasporafoundation.org/ came to mind. Regardless, in an age of Trump, I imagine P2P might see a resurgence of interest...
-david On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Alex Pankratov <[email protected]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: p2p-hackers [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > > Of Tom Ritter > > Sent: December 4, 2016 12:00 AM > > To: theory and practice of decentralized computer networks <p2p- > > [email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] Examples of federated IM systems? > > > > XMPP? I'd suggest it's about as federated as email: you have a few > > giant providers (Google), a few specialty providers (ccc.de), and then > > some holdouts run their own (resulting in perhaps the worst option for > > metadata analysis?) > > > > But I am far from an XMPP expert. > > Yep, like XMPP but with information disclosure policies if you will. > > Basically, an option of allowing clients of the same server to know > everything about each other (status, IP, custom attributes), and > then allow access to the same information to *some* clients from > other servers. > > The context is that I'd like to be able to run my own Skype-like > server to be used for friends and family, but also allow people > from other servers to communicate with us. In particular, I'd like > to accommodate the case of having trust in external peers (and thus > allowing them to see our status, IPs, etc.), but not necessarily in > their server... if this makes any sense. > > Alex > > > > > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers >
_______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
