[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[tor-talk] Facebook brute forcing hidden services
On dim., nov. 2, 2014 at 2:37 , rysiek <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> okay, fuck that, I'm going to dive in, because the level of FUD is
> strong in
> this one.
Well, thanks :)
>
>
> Dnia niedziela, 2 listopada 2014 12:19:24 edhelas pisze:
>> I can resume this fragmentation issue by a simple sentence that I'm
>> saying more and more these days : "If you have a problem, do not
>> write
>> an API, write a protocol".
>
> Sure:
> https://xkcd.com/927/
>
> I don't understand why we need over9000 different, incompatible
> federated
> social web protocols. It would seem to me we need *ONE* with several
> *GOOD*
> implementations.
>
>> The social federation protocol is already here : it's XMPP. And yes
>> it
>> can support everything a social network has to offer (feeds,
>> subscriptions, profiles, contact listâ?¦). There is already
>> millions of
>> users on the XMPP network, and you can easily find several clients
>> on
>> all the plateforms for it.
>>
>> I'm working since 2008 on the Movim project (https://movim.eu/), to
>> build a full, good looking, "decentralized" (federated) and open
>> source
>> social network on XMPP. And believe me, yes it's possible.
>
> I won't discuss that. I will however point out that "possible" is not
> enough.
It's possible to push it forward and try to not reinvent the wheel
again and again by creating a new protocol.
>
>
>> I like the link that the guy made in the presentation with Firefox.
>> Why
>> Firefox surpassed IE ? Because they just choose to implement the W3C
>> standards and try to improve it (and they offer some nice features
>> too).
>
> Absolutely.
>
>> Diaspora, GNU Social, Friendica are not trying to do that, they
>> create
>> their own "proprietary" protocol
>
> Oh, wow. Do you even understand the words that you use? I mean,
> "proprietary"?
> It's documented, the code is open, the protocol has at least two FLOSS
> implementations. Seriously, what were you trying to achieve here?
Ok, the term "proprietary" was a little strong. Of course the
sourcecode of theses projects is open. But can you give me any serious
documentations (more than a Wiki or some ML links) that can help me to
implement properly the Diaspora/Friendica/GNU Social protocols like
RFC, IETF stuffs ?
A protocol have to be stable in the time, most of theses project just
create their own protocol from their need. The Diaspora protocol was
re-written already one time (which totally broke the Friendica
compatibility at this time), the guys from Status.net moved to
Pump.ioâ?¦
>
>
>> to talk between each other and after that face the same issues than
>> all the
>> others network : "Hey, we are not compatibles ! Lets create an API
>> and the
>> other networks will be compatible with us".
>
> No. They created a protocol that other networks implement. For example
> Friendica implements GNU Social's protocol, Diaspora's protocol and
> their own
> (documented, opensourced) protocol. Red similarily.
No, they wrote their own protocol for their own project, and someone
just try to implement it to try to be compatible. But it's a one way
work, the guys from Diaspora will not adapt their protocol to help the
guys from Friendica/GNU Social/whatever.
>
>
> Reading a bit on it would be a good idea.
>
>> So keep calm and implement XMPP ;)
>
> No. Come to The Federation assembly at #31C3, get involved in a more
> meaningful way than calling open protocols "proprietary" just because
> you
> don't know them, and try working with quite a few projects that
> already
> cooperate and federate with common *protocols* (not APIs).
>
> The question is not "which protocol is better", because while we
> bikeshed on
> this question, people are still sitting on Failbroke and Shitter,
> instead of
> moving out of these walled gardens.
>
> The question is: "how can we *cooperate* to get people on the libre,
> federated
> side of social networks". 1.5 year ago I submitted to all the
> fedsocnet devs a
> simple question, here's the link again:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fedsocweb/2013May/0058.html
>
> The answer was: "impossiburu, we won't, not invented here, my
> protocol is
> better than yours". So instead of trying to herd those cats, I am
> grabbing the
> opportunity arising from the fact that we already have The
> Federation. Let's
> expand it and build upon it, eh?
What is your plan with The Federation ? To build a project to help all
theses project to talk each others and find a way to "standardize" the
communications between them to be compatible with eachothers ?
Then you will define some basic schema of authentication/packet format
(JSON/HTML/XMLâ?¦)/global architectureâ?¦
In the end it will looks like this : https://xkcd.com/927/
If your aim is to ask theses project to have a public API to share
stuffs between their different servers, well good luck.
>
> Shouting "XMPP! XMPP!" is not helping.
No, but I prefer to contribute and improve a 15 years old protocol,
with millions of users and hundred of implementations, managed by a
strong Fundation that works with the IETF than on a 4 yo protocol
implented by ~2 project where all the documentation you can find on it
is here
https://wiki.diasporafoundation.org/Federation_protocol_overview.
>
>
> --
> Pozdr
> rysiek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20141102/534e0b09/attachment.html>