Redecentralize

other apps can also use it. > Also what is the point of that graph on that last link - what are you trying to communicate to the user? And why are you using a line graph to plot a discrete variable? Under what circumstance would you want /...\ circuit, and how are you communicating this choice to the user in the UI? If you are referring to the hops versus download speed graph.. This is just the result of an initial measurement with people on our forum. This was our first indication that our method could yield /...\ plus an over-the-local-wifi feature. The two > things I wonder: what's the merit of bittorrent as a replacement > communication structure when applications don't communicate via > file-sharing, and would this perform well enough to make it useful now? > > Also second Ximin

other apps can also use it. > Also what is the point of that graph on that last link - what are you trying to communicate to the user? And why are you using a line graph to plot a discrete variable? Under what circumstance would you want /...\ circuit, and how are you communicating this choice to the user in the UI? If you are referring to the hops versus download speed graph.. This is just the result of an initial measurement with people on our forum. This was our first indication that our method could yield /...\ plus an over-the-local-wifi feature. The two > things I wonder: what's the merit of bittorrent as a replacement > communication structure when applications don't communicate via > file-sharing, and would this perform well enough to make it useful now? > > Also second Ximin

peers so a few minutes of downtime doesn't affect anyone much. All the authentication is based around 256-bit ECC cryptography. All communications between peers are encrypted end-to-end, so while supernodes can see *that* you are communicating (unless you successfully NAT-traverse and connect directly) but cannot /...\ many members for everyone to get every multicast, it degrades gracefully by propagating multicasts to multicast subscribers that are more frequent partners in communication. I chose to virtualize at layer 2 because this enables any protocol to work... you could even play IPX LAN games over this /...\ more important than infrastructure decentralization. #3 is sort of a philosophical point. Basically I think it's more important to enable later al communication functionally than to physically decentralize the network. I'm not saying the latter isn't important... just that it's a lot harder to achieve

peers so a few minutes of downtime doesn't affect anyone much. All the authentication is based around 256-bit ECC cryptography. All communications between peers are encrypted end-to-end, so while supernodes can see *that* you are communicating (unless you successfully NAT-traverse and connect directly) but cannot /...\ many members for everyone to get every multicast, it degrades gracefully by propagating multicasts to multicast subscribers that are more frequent partners in communication. I chose to virtualize at layer 2 because this enables any protocol to work... you could even play IPX LAN games over this /...\ more important than infrastructure decentralization. #3 is sort of a philosophical point. Basically I think it's more important to enable later al communication functionally than to physically decentralize the network. I'm not saying the latter isn't important... just that it's a lot harder to achieve

peers so a few minutes of downtime doesn't affect anyone much. All the authentication is based around 256-bit ECC cryptography. All communications between peers are encrypted end-to-end, so while supernodes can see *that* you are communicating (unless you successfully NAT-traverse and connect directly) but cannot /...\ many members for everyone to get every multicast, it degrades gracefully by propagating multicasts to multicast subscribers that are more frequent partners in communication. I chose to virtualize at layer 2 because this enables any protocol to work... you could even play IPX LAN games over this /...\ more important than infrastructure decentralization. #3 is sort of a philosophical point. Basically I think it's more important to enable later al communication functionally than to physically decentralize the network. I'm not saying the latter isn't important... just that it's a lot harder to achieve

peers so a few minutes of downtime doesn't affect anyone much. All the authentication is based around 256-bit ECC cryptography. All communications between peers are encrypted end-to-end, so while supernodes can see *that* you are communicating (unless you successfully NAT-traverse and connect directly) but cannot /...\ many members for everyone to get every multicast, it degrades gracefully by propagating multicasts to multicast subscribers that are more frequent partners in communication. I chose to virtualize at layer 2 because this enables any protocol to work... you could even play IPX LAN games over this /...\ more important than infrastructure decentralization. #3 is sort of a philosophical point. Basically I think it's more important to enable later al communication functionally than to physically decentralize the network. I'm not saying the latter isn't important... just that it's a lot harder to achieve

On Aug 14, 2014, at 1:30 AM, David Geib < trustiosity.zrm@gmail.com > wrote: It

putting behind TOR, plus an over-the-local-wifi feature. The two things I wonder: what's the merit of bittorrent as a replacement communication structure when applications don't communicate via file-sharing, and would this perform well enough to make it useful now? Also second Ximin's thoughts /...\ expanding our Android port and enhance our NFC sync capability. Tech docs: https://github.com/Tribler/tribler/wiki#tor-like-onion-routing-and-privacy-protection Our promo text: The Shadow Internet - a censorship-free communication infrastructure The shadow Internet is an alternative communication infrastructure. Under active development for several years, it's specifically crafted to be resilient to sniffing, blocking

because corporations really care about this notion. But a free society?<br> <br> There are four modes of communication we do, public/anonymous, private/anonymous, public/known, private/known. Now the question is which modes of communication should act like many systems and which should act like one system. Here /...\ obviously stupid. <br> <br> <a href="http://firestr.com/">Fire★</a> falls on the private/known mode of communication, and I am not attempting to make it anything else.  ZeroTier One can act as public or private and it makes sense /...\ system are HARD and you have to deal with CAP. <br> <br> The developers trying to make decentralized public communication systems have a huge hill to climb and they need resources that corporations are simply not interested in providing. I really feel for them

have *anything*, you have to ask what it is you're supposed to be trusting. If you start communicating with some John Doe on the other side of the world with no prior relationship or claim to any specific credentials, does it actually matter that he wants to call himself /...\ John Smith instead of John Doe? At that point the only thing you can really ask to be assured of is that when you communicate with "John Smith" tomorrow it's the same "John Smith" it was yesterday. > Another point on this... History has taught us that governments /...\ forever. That's nothing new. Maybe the question is whether there are any new *solutions* to the old problems. Some combination of global instantaneous communication and digital storage might make it harder for people to behave dishonestly or inconsistently without getting caught. But then we're back to computing trust

fundamental and more important than infrastructure decentralization. #3 is sort of a philosophical point. Basically I think it's more important to enable lateral communication functionally than to physically decentralize the network. I'm not saying the latter isn't important... just that it's a lot harder to achieve /...\ killer apps" for it. It wouldn't go anywhere. This is why one of my goals with this project is to make p2p lateral communication easy on public virtual LANs. The fact that peers use a set of centralized servers to find each other is IMHO secondary... making lateral communication

more important than infrastructure decentralization. #3 is sort of a philosophical point. Basically I think it's more important to enable later al communication functionally than to physically decentralize the network. I'm not saying the latter isn't important... just that it's a lot harder to achieve /...\ killer apps" for it. It wouldn't go anywhere. This is why one of my goals with this project is to make p2p lateral communication easy on public virtual LANs. The fact that peers use a set of centralized servers to find each other is IMHO secondary... making lateral communication

consumer of a Web service (a User Agent) then fetches links, queries the links by looking for reltypes that it understands, and then begins communicating with the endpoints of those links according to their reltype specs. By publishing Askemos' protocols as reltypes, you standardize the protocols. For a simple example /...\ order to receive the pings. The client can assume that subscription will work, otherwise the server is mis-implemented and should be avoided. For communicating between peers and browsers, there's WebRTC, which acts as an HTTPL channel just like the Workers' postMessage channel

need an environment where I see agents (be them accounts >> representing human users or automated, autonomous processes) >> communicating via asynchronous, unreliable, unidirectional >> messages. That's how we observe human interaction in writing. >> Humans or juristic persons sending letters, registered mail /...\ Again, quite. Actually, it's not just humans - I've been reading quite > a bit of literature on insect interactions, communication and > behaviour. A good overview and a book I particularly enjoyed was > Deborah Gordon's "Ant Encounters - Interaction Networks and Colony > Behaviour

application agnostic. > So I need an environment where I see agents (be them accounts > representing human users or automated, autonomous processes) > communicating via asynchronous, unreliable, unidirectional > messages. That's how we observe human interaction in writing. > Humans or juristic persons sending letters, registered mail /...\ Again, quite. Actually, it's not just humans - I've been reading quite a bit of literature on insect interactions, communication and behaviour. A good overview and a book I particularly enjoyed was Deborah Gordon's "Ant Encounters - Interaction Networks and Colony Behaviour". > Side note: Tuns

being intervened with may be compromised. > > In a theoretical sense that's true, because if the network is totally compromised, meaning no communication can take place between anyone, then you can't do anything in the direction of fixing it without having some external network /...\ coordinate. But that's only a problem before bootstrap. If you can discover and communicate with several compatriots using the network and over time come to trust them before any attack is launched against the network, you can then designate them as trusted parties without any external contact. This

network being intervened with may be compromised. In a theoretical sense that's true, because if the network is totally compromised, meaning no communication can take place between anyone, then you can't do anything in the direction of fixing it without having some external network to use to coordinate /...\ that's only a problem before bootstrap. If you can discover and communicate with several compatriots using the network and over time come to trust them before any attack is launched against the network, you can then designate them as trusted parties without any external contact. This is like

posts were uploaded that explain more of the architecture: > > "In-Application Sandboxing with Web Workers" http://pfraze.github.io/2014/03/08/in-application-sandboxing-with-web-workers.html > "Communicating with Web Workers using HTTP" http://pfraze.github.io/2014/03/08/communicating-with-web-workers-using-http.html Thanks for these. It still looks related. Though I feel I'm missing something basic. Like /...\ state bypassing the agreement step. Insofar your sandboxing text reads very related to our implementation. Obviously. Ah, yeah: applications in Askemos can communicate with each other. By passing asynchronous messages. The implementation makes sure that in - case the group of nodes maintaining the receiving application is not the same

that two additional posts were uploaded that explain more of the architecture: > > "In-Application Sandboxing with Web Workers" http://pfraze.github.io/2014/03/08/in-application-sandboxing-with-web-workers.html > "Communicating with Web Workers using HTTP" http://pfraze.github.io/2014/03/08/communicating-with-web-workers-using-http.html Thanks for these.  It still looks related.  Though I feel I'm missing /...\ state bypassing the agreement step. Insofar your sandboxing text reads very related to our implementation. Obviously. Ah, yeah: applications in Askemos can communicate with each other. By passing asynchronous messages. The implementation makes sure that in - case the group of nodes maintaining the receiving application is not the same

expanding our Android port and enhance our NFC sync capability. Tech docs: https://github.com/Tribler/tribler/wiki#tor-like-onion-routing-and-privacy-protection Our promo text: The Shadow Internet - a censorship-free communication infrastructure The shadow Internet is an alternative communication infrastructure. Under active development for several years, it's specifically crafted to be resilient to sniffing, blocking

ports and unnecessarily using a central server to connect two endpoints. Result: Central server becomes a single point of compromise for millions of users' communications. 3) Enterprise starts using DPI to actually verify that something on port 80 is HTTP to block the people running other apps on it. Result /...\ traffic going through it, which gives one target an attacker can compromise and use to compromise all the communications in your entire organization. No part of this can be considered a security improvement. On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Adam Ierymenko < adam.ierymenko@zerotier.com > wrote: I sort

ports and unnecessarily using a central server to connect two endpoints. Result: Central server becomes a single point of compromise for millions of users' communications. 3) Enterprise starts using DPI to actually verify that something on port 80 is HTTP to block the people running other apps on it. Result /...\ traffic going through it, which gives one target an attacker can compromise and use to compromise all the communications in your entire organization. No part of this can be considered a security improvement. On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Adam Ierymenko < adam.ierymenko@zerotier.com > wrote: I sort

have some name or other identity and you need a trustworthy method of obtaining the corresponding public key. The second problem is the communication problem, which is a reliability/availability problem. You have some public key and you want to make a [more] direct connection to it so you need /...\ actually required in general. The things like that which everyone has to agree about are relatively static. Meanwhile if Alice and Bob want to communicate then Alice and Bob have to agree on how to do it but that doesn't require everybody else to do it in the same

great and common to billion people in the world ! A first step into redecentralize all could be self host some of cloud and communications systems like G**gle hangout and Skype. I found these very useful https://meet.jit.si https://jitsi.org open source and free projects, with many cool options also

archive+backup, calendar, notes etc. So I need an environment where I see agents (be them accounts representing human users or automated, autonomous processes) communicating via asynchronous, unreliable, unidirectional messages. That's how we observe human interaction in writing. Humans or juristic persons sending letters, registered mail etc. Side note

great and common to billion people in the world ! A first step into redecentralize all could be self host some of cloud and communications systems like G**gle hangout and Skype. I found these very useful https://meet.jit.si https://jitsi.org open source and free projects, with many cool options also

distinguish a targeted attack from a node being offline is to establish that it is online, which requires you to have a communications path to it, which would allow you to defeat the attack. So unless you can efficiently defeat the attack you can't efficiently detect whether

would be significantly easier if it weren’t for NAT. NAT traversal demands a relaying maneuver that inherently exposes some metadata about the communication event taking place. But we already know NAT is evil and must be destroyed or the kittens will die. > It's true that nobody

environment > changes, > > and with it your organism, from biological to political. With the few > > hindsight we have gained on communication technologies, we can > tell that > > powers already there can use them to their advantage as much as > wannabe > > liberation

motivation was very much to redress the balance or rather lack of, from mainstream media reporting on developing world issues by having correspondents communicate directly between each other and with media organisations. I will leave it to you to judge how successful that ambition has been.   The design team

intersection of senders and receivers notaries is too small.) For a larger world byzantine replication does not work, because it comes at quadratic communication cost. Instead we would create "virtual banks": groups of individuals each running a peer and *contracted* (as in "having signed a legal contract

intersection of senders and receivers notaries is too small.) For a larger world byzantine replication does not work, because it comes at quadratic communication cost.  Instead we would create "virtual banks": groups of individuals each running a peer and *contracted* (as in "having signed a legal contract

receivers > notaries is too small.) > > For a larger world byzantine replication does not work, because it comes > at quadratic communication cost. Instead we would create "virtual > banks": groups of individuals each running a peer and *contracted* (as > in "having signed

notaries is too small.) >> >> For a larger world byzantine replication does not work, because it comes >> at quadratic communication cost. Instead we would create "virtual >> banks": groups of individuals each running a peer and *contracted

significantly easier if it weren’t for NAT. NAT > traversal demands a relaying maneuver that inherently exposes some > metadata about the communication event taking place. But we already > know NAT is evil and must be destroyed or the kittens will die. NAT is the biggest

embrace new technologies, your environment changes, and with it your organism, from biological to political. With the few hindsight we have gained on communication technologies, we can tell that powers already there can use them to their advantage as much as wannabe liberation technologies, except at a must large scale

motivation was very much to redress the balance or rather lack of, from mainstream media reporting on developing world issues by having correspondents communicate directly between each other and with media organisations. I will leave it to you to judge how successful that ambition has been. The design team

interview me if I finish it, or perhaps if I don't. I use a bunch of things that might count because they communicate substantially less with networks than contemporary services do. * nmh (previously mutt and offlineimap) * fossil * MHTML firefox extension * Kiwix * recoll * recollweb * newsbeuter * Garmin eTrex

calculator program, one that just does it's job when I tell it to, is not political. Writing programs that mediate interpersonal communications is political. But your slogan is good enough. To hell with precision, at least when it comes to slogans. Dave On Saturday, July

taken into account is the question. "Do my friends use it". As more an more friends use Signal, I think it is worth trying. Communication technology that nobody uses accept me is not yet worth trying

that two additional posts were uploaded that explain more of the architecture: "In-Application Sandboxing with Web Workers" http://pfraze.github.io/2014/03/08/in-application-sandboxing-with-web-workers.html "Communicating with Web Workers using HTTP" http://pfraze.github.io/2014/03/08/communicating-with-web-workers-using-http.html Askemos appears to solve trust in distributed application-state, correct? I'll need to read more

apart. On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Stephan Tual < stephan.tual@ethereum.org > wrote: Agreed - closed source really sucks. Stephan Tual Chief Communications Officer -- sk. stephan.tual tw. @stephantual On Monday, 2 June 2014 at 10:10, Steve Phillips wrote: OpenGarden sounds awesome, but it's closed source

your environment changes, > and with it your organism, from biological to political.  With the few > hindsight we have gained on communication technologies, we can tell that > powers already there can use them to their advantage as much as wannabe > liberation technologies, except

calculator program, one that just > does it's job when I tell it to, is not political. Writing programs > that mediate interpersonal communications is political. But your > slogan is good enough. To hell with precision, at least when it > comes to slogans. Dave

have a federated  zero-knowledge system hosted by many providers.  (If the servers are independent and don't communicate, we could have one server that publicly lists the IPs of the other servers.)  This is basically the Fluidinfo scenario, but hosted my multiple parties

technologies, your environment changes, and with it your organism, from biological to political.  With the few hindsight we have gained on communication technologies, we can tell that powers already there can use them to their advantage as much as wannabe liberation technologies, except at a must large scale

style participatory dynamics for finding points of collaboration and extraction of conclusions. ** Topics ** Focus on FLOSS software with some of the following features: Social: communication e.g. social-networking, microblogging, reworked email Social: collaboration e.g. wikis, pads, wave, shared file hosting, multimedia repositories Alternative to proprietary choices Federated / Distributed / Interoperable Open

that is managed by a diverse set of individuals. (2) Functional decentralization A functionally decentralized (networked) system is one that permits its parts to communicate directly without involving a third party translator or intermediary. (3) Physical decentralization A physically decentralized system is one that is distributed and robust from

past decade that strongly asserting our rights is the very least that we can do to regain individual sovereignty over our data and communications.   And the first step in asserting one's rights is acting upon them. So think twice before releasing your personal data to large, centralised cloud

completely opensource project (hardware or software), who might be available in London towards the end of May? Thank you! --  Stephan Tual Chief Communications Officer Ethereum.org

Prominent North American Enterprise Linux Vendor" so you can install from RPM, etc. http://www.clearfoundation.com/ https://suite.tiki.org/ClearOS The Real Time Communication (RTC) part of Tiki Suite is inspired by the excellent http://www.rtcquickstart.org/ guide. We want this to become as much as possible a point & click installation

great and common to billion people in the world ! A first step into redecentralize all could be self host some of cloud and communications systems like G**gle hangout and Skype. I found these very useful https://meet.jit.si https://jitsi.org open source and free projects, with many cool options also

while that there is absolutely no problem in using centralized systems to help build decentralized ones. If it speeds things up or improves your communication or whatever, use it. Every previous tech revolution used the present to build the future too. - Adam @ ZeroTier

Anyone in SF next week? I'll be there for http://www.decentralizedweb.net and happy to meet up. Also who here is using Matrix for communication? They have a really great product out there and if fits the redecentralizaion theme perfectly :) I'd love to create a redecentralization channel

speakers at our London meetup next month: 1. Matthew Hodgson from Matrix.org and Riot.im talking about decentralized chat, encryption, and new methods of communication 2. Me, talking about Redecentralize Radar http://redecentralize.org/radar/ You can sign up here! https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/decentralised-apps-redecentralize-london-april-meetup-tickets-32951400526?aff=erelexpmlt Francis

completely opensource project (hardware or software), who might be available in London towards the end of May? Thank you! --  Stephan Tual Chief Communications Officer Ethereum.org

project? Briar is a messaging app designed for activists, journalists, and anyone else who needs a safe, easy and robust way to communicate. Unlike traditional messaging tools such as email or Twitter, Briar doesn't rely on a central server - messages are synchronized directly between the users' devices

technologies, your environment changes, > and with it your organism, from biological to political. With the few > hindsight we have gained on communication technologies, we can tell that > powers already there can use them to their advantage as much as wannabe > liberation technologies, except at a must

Agreed - closed source really sucks. Stephan Tual Chief Communications Officer -- sk. stephan.tual tw. @stephantual On Monday, 2 June 2014 at 10:10, Steve Phillips wrote: OpenGarden sounds awesome, but it's closed source :-(.  The founders aren't worried about that though, it seems: https://twitter.com/elimisteve/status/473086170725756928 --Steve

apart. On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Stephan Tual < stephan.tual@ethereum.org > wrote: Agreed - closed source really sucks. Stephan Tual Chief Communications Officer -- sk. stephan.tual tw. @stephantual On Monday, 2 June 2014 at 10:10, Steve Phillips wrote: OpenGarden sounds awesome, but it's closed source

apart. On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Stephan Tual < stephan.tual@ethereum.org > wrote: Agreed - closed source really sucks. Stephan Tual Chief Communications Officer -- sk. stephan.tual tw. @stephantual On Monday, 2 June 2014 at 10:10, Steve Phillips wrote: OpenGarden sounds awesome, but it's closed source

apart. On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Stephan Tual < stephan.tual@ethereum.org > wrote: Agreed - closed source really sucks. Stephan Tual Chief Communications Officer -- sk. stephan.tual tw. @stephantual On Monday, 2 June 2014 at 10:10, Steve Phillips wrote: OpenGarden sounds awesome, but it's closed source

apart. On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Stephan Tual < stephan.tual@ethereum.org > wrote: Agreed - closed source really sucks. Stephan Tual Chief Communications Officer -- sk. stephan.tual tw. @stephantual On Monday, 2 June 2014 at 10:10, Steve Phillips wrote: OpenGarden sounds awesome, but it's closed source

service isolation properly. Authentication should be done with crypto. That's the idea with this project. Make it as simple as possible to securely communicate with any device. All you need is the name because the key names are self-authenticating which means they can be used to bootstrap authentication