On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 16:39 -0400, Henry Litwhiler wrote: > On 3/24/10 1:06 PM, Sylvan Heuser wrote: > > As I see it, we have two approaches between we must decide. > > > > > > The pure P2P approach: > > Pro: > > - Everyone has true full control over their data > > - No logs on any server that could be used against you > > Con: > > - Apart from caching (which would generate new problems), when the > > machine or connection (This also applies for SheevaPlugs) of a user is > > down, the profile of this user will also be inaccessible. > > > > > I feel like there are a number of ways around this con. For instance, > certain portions of user data could be backed up on the servers of > their friends, so that it could be retrieved in the event of some sort > of system failure, and so that the user's profile is still available, > despite any connection difficulties. Of course, this approach could > present a number of privacy and data control problems. It's just one > of many solutions, at any rate.
If GNU Social was implemented on top of GNUnet[1], we could get anonymous/encrypted p2p storage with active migration, such that if a user requested data it would be cached on their node. If "their node" is actually a high-end server/supernode that is serving multiple clients, even better - GNUnet scales up and supports postgres and MySQL as backends. Also, this would mean that GNU Social would be anonymous and censorship-proof. This doesn't seem likely, but it's a cool idea. [1] https://gnunet.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
