192900+ entries in 1.44s

decimation: this was from
a paper that was written by folks who designed early 80's network protocols
assbot: Logged on 07-01-2015 01:22:05; asciilifeform: with udp, you can make the 'friend or foe?' decision upon receipt of
a single (!) packet.
decimation: it occurs to me that one ought not design low level features into
a communication system unless absolutely necessary
mircea_popescu: artifexd nevertheless, since output is always encrypted to
a key,
artifexd: If you want
a back and forth connection, you end up duplicating tcp yourself.
mircea_popescu: if we were onm
a purely broadcast network, it'd work right
mircea_popescu: which is how humanity managed to inch its way to this sad time when it's about to kill itself
a thousand different ways
mircea_popescu: more importantly, hitler IS
a lot more in that than he would be in this.
mircea_popescu: ok, let's work
a different way. let us compare two scenarios.
mircea_popescu: i think i explained it half
a dozen different ways, to exhaustion, but am at
a loss as to why what seems obvious is not communicating itself.
mircea_popescu: or, if you prefer, elevating the source to the rank of
a connect.
mircea_popescu: at issue is your proposal to make this
a reality for people you don't know.
mircea_popescu: fundamentally your argument reduces to
a deep seated "all peoples matter"
mircea_popescu:
a screening of "
a man for all seasons" is in order here.
mircea_popescu: artifexd i do. it's the equivalent of making
a weirdo reality where anyone who eavesdrops also has
a recording device.
mircea_popescu: this harms because : it gives unknowns
a weight they should not have ; it removes the incentive for users to police at their local level ; it allows third parties to construct undeniable chatlogs that they had no business in.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: currently : 1. friend to friend relations are entirely cryptographically secured. 2. unknown-to-unknown relations are not secured, and must proceed through
a friend of either party to even happen.
mircea_popescu: as in, why add clunk that actually harms and hinders, except to perpetuate what we generally agree is
a harmful meme.
mircea_popescu: you understand this ? nobody can police
a list of 2bn ip addresses.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform actual pedo irl yes. among the online scum that makes up
a good chunk of the "bitcoin community" on places like forums etc, common enough.
mircea_popescu: perhaps this is what irks, such
a clear statement of that inconvenient (but nevertheless true) fact
mircea_popescu: artifexd this is possible lol. but also
a large number.
artifexd: I start up my little process, it makes
a connection to one or eight other people and it just works through the magic of maths.
artifexd: I had imagined #b-
a but where everyone is ident'd all the time. No impersonating anyone else is remotely possible.
mircea_popescu: if anyone runs
a mega node, his hardware is his problem
assbot: Logged on 07-01-2015 01:22:05; asciilifeform: with udp, you can make the 'friend or foe?' decision upon receipt of
a single (!) packet.
mircea_popescu: cause you're tryin to shoehorn nonchat uses of
a chat network.
artifexd: I add the ip address to the key so when I start up, I have
a place (or places) to look for you.
artifexd: As
a currently running gossipd, if I get
a connection request with "I'm bob. Here's proof", then I accept the connection and add that ip address to my list for that key. (For later connecting to him)
mircea_popescu: artifexd this could also work, as
a handshakey sort of thing, sure.
artifexd: I would think that instead of
a list of ip addresses you would have
a list of pubkeys and each pubkey has one (or more) ip addresses assigned to it. When you start up gossipd, it calls out to all the ip addresses in the lists and says "I'm bob, proven by this signature. Prove you are alice, with cryptoproof". If the answering box responds appropriately,
☟︎ mircea_popescu: asciilifeform it's merely meant to put chat on
a sane footing.
mircea_popescu: and admitting everyone known is known to the same, high degree to warrant
a connection.
mircea_popescu: artifexd
a 1mbps connection, which is reasonably common in households, should be able to support maybe
a few hundred connections.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform that's
a subplot i dun wanna enter into now - this is complex enough as it is - but suffice to say i am persuaded such situations are thermodynamiocally bound to narrow timespaces.
mircea_popescu: artifexd anywhere between
a few dozen and
a few thousands.
mircea_popescu: as far as it's in the form "either you or
A X" the only answer is "i don't care."
mircea_popescu: but i also have little interest in fighting the narrowing down. that's not really
a good use of time.