I actually really like it, need to look at it a bit more though. On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 at 19:48 Pablo Ojanguren <pablo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, Evan, that's my concern about IPFS. Anycase, they use technolgies > addressing our problems <https://youtu.be/HUVmypx9HGI?t=33m34s> > > 2016-04-21 11:19 GMT+02:00 Evan Hughes <ehu...@gmail.com>: > > > @andreas: Crypto is never solid ;) > > > > @yuri: whats your opinion on the IPFS > > > > @pablo: following the demo it looks like IPFS is literally file transfers > > but that incurrs more costs compared to a database solution like > cassandra. > > > > On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 at 19:15 Yuri Z <vega...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > We don't need any kind of proof, as long as the wave server signed the > > > delta - it is considered valid. Prood of work is used to create > > > decentralized consensus regarding the ordering of transactions. In our > > case > > > the wave server signs each transaction, and it's up to other federating > > > wave server to decide which signature it trusts - or at least this is > the > > > way the federation is supposed to work currently. > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:18 AM Andreas Kotes < > > > count-apache....@flatline.de> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Yuri, > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 09:35:57AM +0000, Yuri Z wrote: > > > > > I was thinking about Federation via persistence level. In > particular > > > when > > > > > all the content persisted into database, but the database is > > > > decentralized > > > > > (like bitcoin blockchain). The content though is encrypted. Each > wave > > > is > > > > > encrypted with a new key. Whenever a participant is added to the > > wave - > > > > > whoever adds him also adds a new record into this user data wavelet > > > with > > > > > the wave private key that is encrypted with the user's public key. > > This > > > > way > > > > > only the new user gets access the the wave private key. > > > > > I.e. all the content is public, but encrypted. Only those that > > control > > > a > > > > > certain key can decrypt the message and add new content. > > > > > So, this architecture follows the bitcoin model - anyone can host > his > > > own > > > > > wave blockchain (like running his own wallet) or use a web wallet - > > > i.e. > > > > > wave client hosted by someone else. > > > > > > > > I thought about this for a while, and turned it around in my head etc > > .. > > > > > > > > I kinda like this idea, although the concept of the blockchain's > proof > > > > of work would put too much strain on a wave system in my point of > view. > > > > > > > > Regarding distributed, version controlled data storage, I think the > by > > > > far best current (open) example is git, which might lend itself > nicely > > > > to our needs as well. > > > > > > > > There even seems to be an open library implementation at > > > > https://libgit2.github.com/, which might solve a lot of the > underlying > > > > problems. > > > > > > > > I haven't look into the details, but there might be merit in > evaluating > > > > whether the way git handles deltas might related well to how we want > to > > > > do OT, and how git shallow checkouts could help gather the relevant > > data > > > > for a current-version view of a Wave quickly. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure whether there's anything git offers that gives us some > > > > streaming-style data transfer capability instead of server-style > > > > push/pull interactivity that's probably less suitable for our needs. > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > count > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Andreas 'count' Kotes > > > > Taming computers for humans since 1990. > > > > "Don't ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and > go > > do > > > > it. > > > > Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." -- > Howard > > > > Thurman > > > > > > > > > >
