Redecentralize

might be able to meet once and exchange keys. If you have a mutual trusted friend you can use that. If you have an existing organizational hierarchy then you can traverse that to find a trusted path. If one of you has a true broadcast medium under your control then /...\ idea of bootstrapping before turning the system on. Just the opposite. Bootstrapping first *is* the ship early method because you bootstrap based on existing trust networks rather than trying to construct a new one from whole cloth. The question is how to gather the existing information in a way that /...\ trust bootstrapping problem. If hybrid overlapping heterogeneous solutions are the way forward for network robustness, then maybe a similar concurrent cake solution exists for trust. Relevant: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/squarezooko This is essentially the roadmap that led to namecoin, which (among other things) disproved Zooko's Triangle. Actually that

asked a couple of related questions on Bitcoin.SE: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/19006/what-protocols-are-built-on-top-of-bitcoin  (Mastercoin, Ripple?) http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/19038/are-there-any-non-monetary-uses-for-the-blockchain-or-the-bitcoin-protocol-gene  (Anti-spam, proof of existence, voting.) Personally, I thought proof of existence seemed the most elegant and obvious-in-hindsight. I really like the idea of Bitcoin as a Mediawiki anti-spam /...\ based secure voting system, but they're not releasing their draft til they raise way too many BTC. And I've seen Proof of Existence , a simple and clever way to use the Bitcoin blockchain to prove you had something at a given time, without revealing what the something

asked a couple of related questions on Bitcoin.SE: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/19006/what-protocols-are-built-on-top-of-bitcoin  (Mastercoin, Ripple?) http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/19038/are-there-any-non-monetary-uses-for-the-blockchain-or-the-bitcoin-protocol-gene  (Anti-spam, proof of existence, voting.) Personally, I thought proof of existence seemed the most elegant and obvious-in-hindsight. I really like the idea of Bitcoin as a Mediawiki /...\ secure voting system, but they're not releasing their draft til they raise way too many BTC. And I've seen Proof of Existence , a simple and clever way to use the Bitcoin blockchain to prove you had something at a given time, without revealing what the something is. What

asked a couple of related questions on Bitcoin.SE: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/19006/what-protocols-are-built-on-top-of-bitcoin  (Mastercoin, Ripple?) http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/19038/are-there-any-non-monetary-uses-for-the-blockchain-or-the-bitcoin-protocol-gene  (Anti-spam, proof of existence, voting.) Personally, I thought proof of existence seemed the most elegant and obvious-in-hindsight. I really like the idea of Bitcoin as a Mediawiki /...\ secure voting system, but they're not releasing their draft til they raise way too many BTC. And I've seen Proof of Existence , a simple and clever way to use the Bitcoin blockchain to prove you had something at a given time, without revealing what the something is. What

mental image of what it might look like, and the protocol is designed to enable it with only the addition of new message types-- existing protocol messages should work fine and not need to be altered much (if at all). A bit about the ZT1 design: Supernodes in ZeroTier /...\ find each other is IMHO secondary... making lateral communication easy enables people to easily develop killer apps that want to talk laterally. Once these exist, the tail will wag the dog. What do I mean by this distinction? Functional decentralization means /...\ network I could type: ping <your IP address> ... and directly ping your box. Physical decentralization means that no central point of failure exists... that I can ping your box regardless of whether someone somewhere else turns off their system. Obviously this is technically a lot harder to achieve

mental image of what it might look like, and the protocol is designed to enable it with only the addition of new message types-- existing protocol messages should work fine and not need to be altered much (if at all). A bit about the ZT1 design: Supernodes in ZeroTier /...\ find each other is IMHO secondary... making lateral communication easy enables people to easily develop killer apps that want to talk laterally. Once these exist, the tail will wag the dog. What do I mean by this distinction? Functional decentralization means /...\ network I could type: ping <your IP address> ... and directly ping your box. Physical decentralization means that no central point of failure exists... that I can ping your box regardless of whether someone somewhere else turns off their system. Obviously this is technically a lot harder to achieve

root is supposed to know whether to trust some third party before signing it. That's the huge fail with the existing CAs. They'll sign anything. Moxie Marlinspike has had a number of relevant things to say about that. > That's the general pattern that /...\ familiar with, from the web to Linux to even polish obsessed creatures like Mac have followed this path. If it doesn't exist yet nobody will use it, and if nobody is using it nobody will bootstrap trust for it because nobody is using it therefore nobody will ever /...\ trust bootstrapping problem. If hybrid overlapping heterogenous solutions are the way forward for network robustness, then maybe a similar concurrent cake solution exists for trust. At some point I think someone is going to successfully attack Bitcoin. What happens then? I don't know. It has some value

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

mental image of what it might look like, and the protocol is designed to enable it with only the addition of new message types-- existing protocol messages should work fine and not need to be altered much (if at all). A bit about the ZT1 design: Supernodes in ZeroTier /...\ find each other is IMHO secondary... making lateral communication easy enables people to easily develop killer apps that want to talk laterally. Once these exist, the tail will wag the dog. What do I mean by this distinction? Functional decentralization means /...\ network I could type: ping <your IP address> ... and directly ping your box. Physical decentralization means that no central point of failure exists... that I can ping your box regardless of whether someone somewhere else turns off their system. Obviously this is technically a lot harder to achieve

mental image of what it might look like, and the protocol is designed to enable it with only the addition of new message types-- existing protocol messages should work fine and not need to be altered much (if at all). A bit about the ZT1 design: Supernodes in ZeroTier /...\ find each other is IMHO secondary... making lateral communication easy enables people to easily develop killer apps that want to talk laterally. Once these exist, the tail will wag the dog. What do I mean by this distinction? Functional decentralization means /...\ network I could type: ping <your IP address> ... and directly ping your box. Physical decentralization means that no central point of failure exists... that I can ping your box regardless of whether someone somewhere else turns off their system. Obviously this is technically a lot harder to achieve

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with

much as possible. WebRTC does not allow you to open arbitrary TCP or UDP sockets, which is what I think you're asking. Existing torrent clients will need updating -- at least, that is the plan. Feross ✩  blog | ✎  studynotes /...\ Feross, quick question about this... Can WebRTC Data Channels natively speak arbitary protocols, so they can just implement the regular BitTorrent protocol? Or will existing BitTorrent clients need updating? Francis On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 03:31:00PM -0800, Feross Aboukhadijeh wrote: > Hey everyone! I think Redecentralize

mind? The rest of your email, was uncorrelated snippets of security-sounding concepts, that don't have much connection to the field as it exists today. Well, it's true that the criterion of being in-corruptible is not widely known today. But I can't see this /...\ anecdote itself left our the actual research entirely.  You can find it on the web site .  No, we did certainly not ignore existing research. Also: by inviting getting academic researchers, students, lawyers etc. to provide reviews, applications and their legal opinion (in addition to the peer-review

mind? The rest of your email, was uncorrelated snippets of security-sounding concepts, that don't have much connection to the field as it exists today. Well, it's true that the criterion of being in-corruptible is not widely known today. But I can't see this /...\ left our the actual research entirely.  You can find it on the web site .  No, we did certainly not ignore existing research. Also: by inviting getting academic researchers, students, lawyers etc. to provide reviews, applications and their legal opinion (in addition to the peer-review

where the Namecoin conversation landed. Found an interesting idea at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6964090 I think it's interesting to look at what existing entities do when faced with DNS MITM and takedowns. The various torrent searchers and anti-censorship entities just diversified the TLDs they depend upon. So when their /...\ have to register and host your domain 5 times, but that's pretty cheap these days.   Other nice properties: works with all existing DNS security mechanisms (including DNSSEC or DNScurve), provides security against registrar or registry level tampering or compromises. Hash of the domain makes it hard

find each other is IMHO secondary... making lateral communication easy enables people to easily develop killer apps that want to talk laterally. Once these exist, the tail will wag the dog. What do I mean by this distinction? Functional decentralization means /...\ network I could type: ping <your IP address> ... and directly ping your box. Physical decentralization means that no central point of failure exists... that I can ping your box regardless of whether someone somewhere else turns off their system. Obviously this is technically a lot harder to achieve

find each other is IMHO secondary... making lateral communication easy enables people to easily develop killer apps that want to talk laterally. Once these exist, the tail will wag the dog. What do I mean by this distinction? Functional decentralization means /...\ network I could type: ping <your IP address> ... and directly ping your box. Physical decentralization means that no central point of failure exists... that I can ping your box regardless of whether someone somewhere else turns off their system. Obviously this is technically a lot harder to achieve

blog post you wrote: > I designed the protocol to be capable of evolving toward a more decentralized design in the future without disrupting existing users, but that's where it stands today. My situation: we wrote a p2p network for replicating state machines with byzantine fault tolerance . That would

blog post you wrote: > I designed the protocol to be capable of evolving toward a more decentralized design in the future without disrupting existing users, but that's where it stands today

blog post you wrote: > I designed the protocol to be capable of evolving toward a more decentralized design in the future without disrupting existing users, but that's where it stands today

blog post you wrote: > I designed the protocol to be capable of evolving toward a more decentralized design in the future without disrupting existing users, but that's where it stands today. -- konklone.com | @konklone

blog post you wrote: > I designed the protocol to be capable of evolving toward a more decentralized design in the future without disrupting existing users, but that's where it stands today. -- konklone.com | @konklone

root is supposed to know whether to trust some third party before signing it. That's the huge fail with the existing CAs. They'll sign anything. Moxie Marlinspike has had a number of relevant things to say about that. > That manual intervention must by definition take place over

break software?  What is "to break"? IMHO software is first and foremost an expression.  In some language. For which some interpreter exists. Which maintains some ongoing process. I would be delighted for you to convince me that I am being too pessimistic, ignorant and unimaginative. I would

notaries" (as we call those devices commissioned to hold some data) than the newly added parties will have to check with the existing set and replicate the data. Sure they will a) check that they get the same checksum from the majority and b) check that the data matches

voting system, but they're not releasing > their draft til they raise way too many BTC. And I've seen Proof of > Existence, a simple and clever way to use the Bitcoin blockchain to > prove you had something at a given time, without revealing what

librelist didn't force to turn to a Google Group which is no more than a mailing list... If I remember, mailing lists have existed before Google and we could have asked dozens of persons who would have offered to host the redecentralize list for free and to take care

Feross, quick question about this... Can WebRTC Data Channels natively speak arbitary protocols, so they can just implement the regular BitTorrent protocol? Or will existing BitTorrent clients need updating? Francis On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 03:31:00PM -0800, Feross Aboukhadijeh wrote: > Hey everyone! I think Redecentralize

email from you soon. > > > > Robert Tischer > > Hiveware, Inc > > "You Can't Hack What Doesn't Exist" (meaning centralized servers) > > rtischer@hiveware.com > > > > Congratulations on your upcoming conference. > -- about me: http://holgerkrekel.net/about-me/ contracting: http://merlinux.eu

control. But all the intentions, architecture, security, community engagement, good faith participation, etc. of the project are all obscured by closing the source. They exist 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

email from you soon. > > > > Robert Tischer > > Hiveware, Inc > > "You Can't Hack What Doesn't Exist" (meaning centralized servers) > > rtischer@hiveware.com > > > > Congratulations on your upcoming conference. > -- about me: http://holgerkrekel.net/about-me/ contracting: http://merlinux.eu

would be X509 sub-certificate authorities. The criterion of being "in-corruptible" would simply forbid sub-CA's. Period.) Left with little choice of existing system, we build our own, where permission delegation would always transfer at most a strict subset of the permissions a user already has. First

software. Now we're got the TOR wire specs operational in Beta with modifications for UDP support. Plus backwards compatibility and anonymous streaming from existing Bittorrent swarms. Next step is 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

wire specs operational in Beta with >> modifications for UDP support. >> Plus backwards compatibility and anonymous streaming from existing >> Bittorrent swarms. >> Next step is expanding our Android port and enhance our NFC sync >> capability. >> Tech docs

wire specs operational in Beta with >> modifications for UDP support. >> Plus backwards compatibility and anonymous streaming from existing >> Bittorrent swarms. >> Next step is expanding our Android port and enhance our NFC sync >> capability. >> Tech docs

based secure voting system, but they're not releasing their draft til they raise way too many BTC. And I've seen Proof of Existence , a simple and clever way to use the Bitcoin blockchain to prove you had something at a given time, without revealing what the something

software. Now we're got the TOR wire specs operational in Beta with modifications for UDP support. Plus backwards compatibility and anonymous streaming from existing Bittorrent swarms. Next step is 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

Hope to get an email from you soon.   Robert Tischer Hiveware, Inc “You Can’t Hack What Doesn’t Exist” (meaning centralized servers) rtischer@hiveware.com   Congratulations on your upcoming conference

with the amount of data that is created. Data Autonomy has two aspects, access and confidentially. Access is the possibility to know what data exists about us and to read it. This ability must be guarded against two problems. Very often nowadays we are not told what data is collected

intentions, architecture, security, community engagement, good faith participation, etc. of the project are all obscured by closing the source. They exist 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

intentions, architecture, security, community engagement, good faith participation, etc. of the project are all obscured by closing the source. They exist 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

intentions, architecture, security, community engagement, good faith participation, etc. of the project are all obscured by closing the source. They exist 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

intentions, architecture, security, community engagement, good faith participation, etc. of the project are all obscured by closing the source. They exist 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