Redecentralize

time, we've known for a Century already that it does > not in all cases.  But the reductionist world view still prevails, > destroying as it builds, seeking universality from flattened and > dysfunctional models. > > In the last few decades, a new force has been /...\ growing fast and strong, > that rejects reductionism, but still proceeds from a similar bias: it > starts considering an issue (e.g., Internet access), and restricts the > field of observation until it fits the agenda; it still works on > computable/measurable parts, and leaves complexity to "externalities". > This /...\ good enough" / "just in time" / "stakeholder" approach can be very > helpful in many circumstances, but still fails when people try to > extrapolate universals from constituent parts.  I would call this the > holographic approach. > > The difference between reductionism and this is that the former

time, we've known for a Century already that it does not in all cases.  But the reductionist world view still prevails, destroying as it builds, seeking universality from flattened and dysfunctional models. In the last few decades, a new force has been growing fast and strong, that /...\ rejects reductionism, but still proceeds from a similar bias: it starts considering an issue (e.g., Internet access), and restricts the field of observation until it fits the agenda; it still works on computable/measurable parts, and leaves complexity to "externalities". This "good enough" / "just in time" / "stakeholder" approach can be very /...\ helpful in many circumstances, but still fails when people try to extrapolate universals from constituent parts.  I would call this the holographic approach. The difference between reductionism and this is that the former assumes the world to be mechanical, and therefore entirely computable, measurable, controllable

most of the time, we've known for a Century already that it does > not in all cases. But the reductionist world view still prevails, > destroying as it builds, seeking universality from flattened and > dysfunctional models. > > In the last few decades, a new force /...\ been growing fast and strong, > that rejects reductionism, but still proceeds from a similar bias: it > starts considering an issue (e.g., Internet access), and restricts the > field of observation until it fits the agenda; it still works on > computable/measurable parts, and leaves complexity to "externalities /...\ This "good enough" / "just in time" / "stakeholder" approach can be very > helpful in many circumstances, but still fails when people try to > extrapolate universals from constituent parts. I would call this the > holographic approach. > > The difference between reductionism

works most of the time, we've known for a Century already that it does not in all cases. But the reductionist world view still prevails, destroying as it builds, seeking universality from flattened and dysfunctional models. In the last few decades, a new force has been growing fast /...\ strong, that rejects reductionism, but still proceeds from a similar bias: it starts considering an issue (e.g., Internet access), and restricts the field of observation until it fits the agenda; it still works on computable/measurable parts, and leaves complexity to "externalities". This "good enough" / "just /...\ time" / "stakeholder" approach can be very helpful in many circumstances, but still fails when people try to extrapolate universals from constituent parts. I would call this the holographic approach. The difference between reductionism and this is that the former assumes the world to be mechanical, and therefore

time, we've known for a Century already that it does > > not in all cases. But the reductionist world view still prevails, > > destroying as it builds, seeking universality from flattened and > > dysfunctional models. > > > > In the last few decades /...\ force has been growing fast and strong, > > that rejects reductionism, but still proceeds from a similar bias: it > > starts considering an issue (e.g., Internet access), and restricts the > > field of observation until it fits the agenda; it still works on > > computable/measurable parts /...\ good enough" / "just in time" / "stakeholder" approach can > be very > > helpful in many circumstances, but still fails when people try to > > extrapolate universals from constituent parts. I would call this the > > holographic approach

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 a super-simplified paragraph of the over-all idea. > Askemos appears to solve /...\ transparently forwarded to all nodes commissioned to run the receiving app. > Regarding shared state, the client/server model is continued, and so server nodes still maintain state authority, but the user may change which servers are used. Hm. This seems like "almost identical". Correct? Except that /...\ Instead you would normally have at least four [better seven to ten] peers assigned to run an app.) > Likewise, the permission model is still origin-based, but it treats all components of the app (page, remote hosts, worker plugins) as part of the network, and so origin is more

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 a super-simplified paragraph of the over-all idea /...\ transparently forwarded to all nodes commissioned to run the receiving app. > Regarding shared state, the client/server model is continued, and so server nodes still maintain state authority, but the user may change which servers are used. Hm.  This seems like "almost identical".  Correct /...\ Instead you would normally have at least four [better seven to ten] peers assigned to run an app.) > Likewise, the permission model is still origin-based, but it treats all components of the app (page, remote hosts, worker plugins) as part of the network, and so origin is more

guard against untrusted peers, not closed source. That's the point.  People might not share their opinion regarding open source.  Still they might want at least some trust among each other. On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Eric Mill < eric@konklone.com > wrote /...\ trust. This reduces possible damage quite a bit. Doesn't help much with keeping data secret when attackers already own a peer.  Still at least no website defacement, no attacker sending messages in your name. On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Jörg F. Wittenberger /...\ source completely rules it out from being part of the decentralized web. Agreed. Certainly, open source software that is hosted on a server can still be silently backdoored in some ways -- you can't generally verify that the server is running the same code that's in public source control

only works well for > organizations, the user-identities have to live within the orgs. > That's a centralizing effect that would still occur in an open > IP/routing layer. So the alternative is web of trust. Harder to implement, harder to attack. And harder to make simple /...\ This would be the easy part. We just create the data structures at all commissioned peers simultaneously. This requires a small computational overhead, but still way cheaper than proof-of-work or some such. > or we rely on central nodes to keep data-bases. Let's outright rejected that

seeing you there :) For those of you who want to come but haven't yet got your ticket, grab them now while they're still available:  https://ti.to/redecentralize/rdc2015/   We're still finalising the format and sessions - so if you want to propose one, just fill

research and technology that I personally find very exciting, and highly relevant to the idea of zero-knowledge centralization -- even though it's still some time off from being scalably useful -- is homomorphic encryption . Homomorphic encryption is a technique where you take two inputs, encrypt them with a private /...\ since scooped up Gentry, and made advances on the original scheme that have sped it up by a trillion times -- but it is still a trillion times too slow. But, someday -- and maybe someday sooner than we think, as these things go -- maybe it will be feasible to have things

icropayments standard in the late 1990s, and it still hasn't shipped.   http://www.w3.org/ECommerce/Micropayments/   Unlike the various startups that have tried to capture this territory, at least decentralized cryptocurrencies are a protocol, so once one reaches critical mass for micropayments it can truly take off...   Francis /...\ Xanadu" that (allegedly) >> had such a content payment system built in. I believe Xanadu is over 50 >> years old and still being worked upon by Ted and volunteers. >> >>> 2015-08-25 10:15 GMT+03:00 Bastien Guerry < bzg@altern.org

wrote another post on my own views on decentralization... sort of a partial followup to the previous "I want to believe" one. I'm still working on a technical followup, but this is more of a theoretical one. http://adamierymenko.com/show-dont-tell-decentralization-can-be-this-easy/ (Apologies if this is a double post -- the previous /...\ sent went out from an old e-mail address that was still in my webmail interface for some reason... shows how often I use webmail. It probably disappeared into the ether

definition. There are quite a number of free software projects that don't allow any modification that they don't like. But they still allow people to propose such modifications, and fork the project if they like. The Linux kernel is such a project. The "current P2P diaspora /...\ payment? Well, to sustain its development, because someone else is doing the right job, and also because maybe they're not themselves programmers and still want to use the software, so they'd better ensure that it remains sustainable. Funding of free software is indeed an important issue

hybrid thin client model they led to was interesting. The internet was certainly damn interesting. But pets.com and flooz? Not so much. I still need to take a deep, deep dive into the block chain technology. I get the very basic surface of it, but I am really curious about /...\ security. If a trusted peer defects then you try the next one. Then even if half the peers you trusted will defect, you're still far ahead of the alternative where 90% or 99.9% of the peers you try could be Sybils. And that gets the percentage of defecting peers

forget that they're all fully trusted. So it's completely futile to try to find a secure one because the insecure ones can still give the attackers a certificate with your name. > Btw... Some folks responded to my post lamenting that I had given up on decentralization. That /...\ better but that just means more people will have built their homes on the flood plain by the time the rain comes. > I still need to take a deep, deep dive into the block chain technology. I get the very basic surface of it, but I am really curious

definition. There are quite a number of free software projects that don't allow any modification that they don't like. But they still allow people to propose such modifications, and fork the project if they like. The Linux kernel is such a project. The "current P2P diaspora /...\ payment? Well, to sustain its development, because someone else is doing the right job, and also because maybe they're not themselves programmers and still want to use the software, so they'd better ensure that it remains sustainable. Funding of free software is indeed an important issue

research and technology that I personally find very exciting, and highly relevant to the idea of zero-knowledge centralization -- even though it's still some time off from being scalably useful -- is homomorphic encryption . Homomorphic encryption is a technique where you take two inputs, encrypt them with a private /...\ since scooped up Gentry, and made advances on the original scheme that have sped it up by a trillion times -- but it is still a trillion times too slow. But, someday -- and maybe someday sooner than we think, as these things go -- maybe it will be feasible to have things

wrote another post on my own views on decentralization... sort of a partial followup to the previous "I want to believe" one. I'm still working on a technical followup, but this is more of a theoretical one. http://adamierymenko.com/show-dont-tell-decentralization-can-be-this-easy/ (Apologies if this is a double post -- the previous /...\ sent went out from an old e-mail address that was still in my webmail interface for some reason... shows how often I use webmail. It probably disappeared into the ether

wrote another post on my own views on decentralization... sort of a partial followup to the previous "I want to believe" one. I'm still working on a technical followup, but this is more of a theoretical one. http://adamierymenko.com/show-dont-tell-decentralization-can-be-this-easy/ (Apologies if this is a double post -- the previous /...\ sent went out from an old e-mail address that was still in my webmail interface for some reason... shows how often I use webmail. It probably disappeared into the ether

wrote another post on my own views on decentralization... sort of a partial followup to the previous "I want to believe" one. I'm still working on a technical followup, but this is more of a theoretical one. http://adamierymenko.com/show-dont-tell-decentralization-can-be-this-easy/ (Apologies if this is a double post -- the previous /...\ sent went out from an old e-mail address that was still in my webmail interface for some reason... shows how often I use webmail. It probably disappeared into the ether.) -- konklone.com | @konklone

wrote another post on my own views on decentralization... sort of a partial followup to the previous "I want to believe" one. I'm still working on a technical followup, but this is more of a theoretical one. http://adamierymenko.com/show-dont-tell-decentralization-can-be-this-easy/ (Apologies if this is a double post -- the previous /...\ sent went out from an old e-mail address that was still in my webmail interface for some reason... shows how often I use webmail. It probably disappeared into the ether

mimic. Regarding WebRTC, the central dependency is signal routing and IP discovery. You can distribute that system with lots of HTTPS hosts, but you still need to address vulnerabilities in DNS and SSL and consider the possibility of a compromised host. That's the same security outlook of most /...\ access policies in the browser? I'm slow to let go of the legacy and > relative simplicity when incremental fixes are still possible. > > They also knock on X.509 and DNS in that page. There's been some talk about > namecoin. Anybody follow that closely enough

believe you wanted to say that you can't _over_estimate the resources it takes All typos are shallow in the mailing list! :) And still: we underestimated how much resources we would need for publicity and evangelism. (The single worst mistake we made.) Could've saved myself a year /...\ people working full time for about four years, a couple of bachelor and master papers and a handful of grants from govt. programs. And still: we underestimated how much resources we would need for publicity and evangelism. (The single worst mistake we made.) and you can't waste time when

effectiveness will then rely on a well-designed permissions model. Regarding shared state, the client/server model is continued, and so server nodes still maintain state authority, but the user may change which servers are used. Likewise, the permission model is still origin-based, but it treats all components

February meetup is now up. This month we're doing a mix of lightning talks and longer talks (up to 30 mins). Speakers still wanted. http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/redecentralize-february-london-meetup-registration-10388404999 Nonmontonix

with the 11th of February at C4CC (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/63972386) > > > > Signup is at http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/redecentralize-february-london-meetup-registration-10388404999 > > > > Still looking for people willing/wanting to do a 5-10 minute, or 20-30 minute talk on the (related) topic of your choice

people working full time for about four years, a couple of bachelor and master papers and a handful of grants from govt. programs. And still: we underestimated how much resources we would need for publicity and evangelism. (The single worst mistake we made.) and you can't waste time when

with the 11th of February at C4CC ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/63972386 ) > > > > Signup is at http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/redecentralize-february-london-meetup-registration-10388404999 > > > > Still looking for people willing/wanting to do a 5-10 minute, or 20-30 minute talk on the (related) topic of your choice

February at C4CC (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/63972386) >>> >>> Signup is at http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/redecentralize-february-london-meetup-registration-10388404999 >>> >>> Still looking for people willing/wanting to do a 5-10 minute, or 20-30 minute talk on the (related) topic of your choice

support a few things ZT1 needs and Windows does not provide. That is working and the tap driver is working, but there are still some rough edges around what goes into the registry to configure the tap devices properly so that they look right in the native Windows network connection

support a few things ZT1 needs and Windows does not provide. That is working and the tap driver is working, but there are still some rough edges around what goes into the registry to configure the tap devices properly so that they look right in the native Windows network connection

created material. 'A' who sends content to 'B' via a server 'S' where the content is 2048-bit end-to-end encrypted, still creatively owns his digital item where 'B' owns a legal copy of same. This is the conversation currently taking place between the public and the government

leave little room to exert coercing power over users. So he had the programmers build backdoors into the users apps.  No he could still not break the permission control.  But he could circumvent it using broken apps. (Until the first source code audit at least.  But that

addition to the peer-review of the original publication) we hoped to foster confidence that we did not miss anything important.  But still that's the normal course of affairs in science, isn't it? This is not a good idea, it will result in a highly insecure

kind of system and situation you have in mind? 1. Could something like the Fluidinfo API, which is world-writable (assuming it's still working), play the role of The People's Zero-Knowledge Data Store? 2. Similarly, what if we all shared some world-writable DB-backed API running

living. But I don't think that requires artificially restricting other people's initiative to do so. This is a colonialist vision, the still dominant vision of out times. Hegemony of a self-proclaimed superior class that knows better will never help us pass this century. > > the forced

recently that Docker announced they can now run on any Linux distribution . I will say that the learning curve on creating Docker containers is still a bit high for how conceptually simple (and beautiful!) Docker is. I was a little taken aback. But they acknowledge this fact all the time

Hansen, Rob Nightingale, @mp1erce and the mysterious Bad-Rabbit on github -- we've now got five interview transcripts live on the site. There's still four more to go though... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aqv-CMqMTudXdEFJUnlRbmJFb3hYcDQyN2NzUHl1TWc&usp=drive_web#gid=0 I'd like us to finish them off before the New Year! Mailpile has a rough first

that’s been setup that is focusing on decentrali[sz]ation. The mailing list is at https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-decentralization and although it is still finding its feet (who isn’t), I’ve mailed to see if there’s a way we can avoid missing

past year. It would be great if you did a video interview with Mike Macgirvin, the creator of Red Matrix (and its still-popular predecessor, Friendica). Red Matrix has some unique capabilities that are difficult to explain in two sentences or a thirty second sound bite, and I think people

exciting uses of WebRTC to date, and I hope you'll check out the project at http://webtorrent.io . Nothing works yet and there's still a lot of code to be written, but I'm pretty sure the concept is sound. Feross ✩  blog

right now :-) Through the XSCE project we have control over the kind of (offline) services we provide and internet websites we allow access to. Still, I would love to have a discussion to form some kind of: (1) Key points worth discussing with a community before enabling internet access

ZeroTier One - https://www.zerotier.com/ Status: beta, pretty stable though one big change is still coming, binary releases with auto-update in the wild and working well. Latest milestone: bug fixes, TCP tunneling for use behind tough firewalls. In development: new web site that is less ugly & easier

Adam Ierymenko < adam.ierymenko@zerotier.com > wrote: ZeroTier One - https://www.zerotier.com/ Status: beta, pretty stable though one big change is still coming, binary releases with auto-update in the wild and working well. Latest milestone: bug fixes, TCP tunneling for use behind tough firewalls. In development: new web site that

mailto:adam.ierymenko@zerotier.com>> > wrote: > > ZeroTier One - https://www.zerotier.com/ > > Status: beta, pretty stable though one big change is still coming, > binary releases with auto-update in the wild and working well. > > Latest milestone: bug fixes, TCP tunneling for use behind tough

source completely rules it out from being part of the decentralized web. Agreed. Certainly, open source software that is hosted on a server can still be silently backdoored in some ways -- you can't generally verify that the server is running the same code that's in public source control

source completely rules it out from being part of the decentralized web. Agreed. Certainly, open source software that is hosted on a server can still be silently backdoored in some ways -- you can't generally verify that the server is running the same code that's in public source control

source completely rules it out from being part of the decentralized web. Agreed. Certainly, open source software that is hosted on a server can still be silently backdoored in some ways -- you can't generally verify that the server is running the same code that's in public source control

from. All the malware I saw came in via HTTP "pull", e-mail, and file sync. The only real-world threat the firewall still does anything to protect us from is the threat of a worm exploiting a true remote hole in a common local service. That threat could

from. All the malware I saw came in via HTTP "pull", e-mail, and file sync. The only real-world threat the firewall still does anything to protect us from is the threat of a worm exploiting a true remote hole in a common local service. That threat could

from. All the malware I saw came in via HTTP "pull", e-mail, and file sync. The only real-world threat the firewall still does anything to protect us from is the threat of a worm exploiting a true remote hole in a common local service. That threat could

either stop operating until they re-establish contact, or continue to operate without the centre's guidance. A distributed system with a centre is still a distributed system - you can't escape the CAP theorem by putting a crown on one of the nodes. It's true that nobody

your actual approach, the peer-(super) peer-peer idea, finesses the problem nicely. Instead of "I am Spartacus," "I am the blind idiot god." Still, might attackers find a vulnerability there? In order to assure the efficiency you desire, someone must provide some resources intended to act as the superpeer

your actual approach, the peer-(super) peer-peer idea, finesses the problem nicely. Instead of "I am Spartacus," "I am the blind idiot god." Still, might attackers find a vulnerability there? In order to assure the efficiency you desire, someone must provide some resources intended to act as the superpeer

there and its presence has an effect on the dynamics of the network. I'm toying around with some ideas, but it's still cooking. > My over-all impression so far is, that the paper mostly concerns > efficiency and load balancing. I'm not yet convinced that these

state. Next I need a dispute (or debug) mode. This must be deadly simple: "pull the network plug". At this point I still want to be sure I have all *my* data and can access it. (Sorry for the complication wrt. DHT design. ;-) Now we know that

they want to contact each other they get one hop access and no Sybil exposure. And if the gateway is down the clients can still participate in the DHT themselves so it isn't a single point of failure. Yeah, that's basically the identical idea except in your model

security. If a trusted peer defects then you try the next one. Then even if half the peers you trusted will defect, you're still far ahead of the alternative where 90% or 99.9% of the peers you try could be Sybils. And that gets the percentage of defecting peers

need a dispute (or debug) mode. This must be deadly simple: > "pull the network plug". > > At this point I still want to be sure I have all *my* data and can > access it. (Sorry for the complication wrt. DHT design

trust laws, etc., pre-date the Internet. Yet it never works. When I see something like that — repeated tries, repeated failures, but everyone still wants it — I start to suspect that there might be a law of nature at work. To give an extreme case — probably

human interactions that might protect against abuse assume relatively small groups. A sports club, church community, even a village, are all self managing. Regulation still happens, but the detection and response are (or can be) relatively lightweight. This doesn't work even with cities, where everyone is a stranger

know where I want to go, in addition to the constraints and heuristics that allow it to navigate safely there. I am still in charge, but not in control. Action in each case combines intent, strategy, resources and constraints

know where I want to go, in addition to the constraints and heuristics that allow it to navigate safely there. I am still in charge, but not in control. Action in each case combines intent, strategy, resources and constraints, but the mix is different. Or maybe

only works well for organizations, the > user-identities have to live within the orgs. That's a centralizing effect > that would still occur in an open IP/routing layer. > > After you've distributed identities, you need to distribute data-structures > as well, or we rely

Since PKI only works well for organizations, the user-identities have to live within the orgs. That's a centralizing effect that would still occur in an open IP/routing layer. After you've distributed identities, you need to distribute data-structures as well, or we rely on central nodes

only works well for organizations, the > user-identities have to live within the orgs. That's a centralizing effect > that would still occur in an open IP/routing layer. > > After you've distributed identities, you need to distribute data-structures > as well, or we rely

user-identities have to live within the orgs. That's a centralizing >> > effect >> > that would still occur in an open IP/routing layer. >> > >> > After you've distributed identities, you need to distribute >> > data-structures

easily eat a lifetime. It can burn thousands of <currency>, feed dozens of developers for a couple of years… and still eventually starve for being not profitable. > IOW I think there is more to decentralization than the network topology > and the raw IP protocol. However

prove that they did indeed perform a > such as relaying your data for you, hence we need to calculate a trust > value. Still this calculation of "trust value" I did not find. Or did not understand. I'm always interested in such things. > The thing

keep growing. Latency is a bigger issue than bandwidth in my opinion. In theory you can pass a voice packet through three relays and still deliver it to the destination in an acceptable amount of time, but the system will have to be really well engineered to minimise latency

past year. It would be great if you did a video interview with Mike Macgirvin, the creator of Red Matrix (and its still-popular predecessor, Friendica). Red Matrix has some unique capabilities that are difficult to explain in two sentences or a thirty second sound bite, and I think people

past year. It would be great if you did a video interview with Mike Macgirvin, the creator of Red Matrix (and its still-popular predecessor, Friendica). Red Matrix has some unique capabilities that are difficult to explain in two sentences or a thirty second sound bite, and I think people

past year. It would be great if you did a video interview with Mik e Macgirvin, the creator of Red Matrix (and its still-popular predecessor, Friendica). Red Matrix has some unique capabilities that are difficult to explain in two sentences or a thirty second sound bite, and I think

past year. It would be great if you did a video interview with Mik e Macgirvin, the creator of Red Matrix (and its still-popular predecessor, Friendica). Red Matrix has some unique capabilities that are difficult to explain in two sentences or a thirty second sound bite, and I think

past year. It would be great if you did a video interview with Mik e Macgirvin, the creator of Red Matrix (and its still-popular predecessor, Friendica). Red Matrix has some unique capabilities that are difficult to explain in two sentences or a thirty second sound bite, and I think

Through the XSCE project we have control over the kind of (offline) > services we provide and internet websites we allow access to. Still, I > would love to have a discussion to form some kind of: > > (1) Key points worth discussing with a community before enabling

Through the XSCE project we have control over the kind of (offline) > services we provide and internet websites we allow access to. Still, I > would love to have a discussion to form some kind of: > > (1) Key points worth discussing with a community before enabling

Through the XSCE project we have control over the kind of (offline) > > services we provide and internet websites we allow access to. Still, I > > would love to have a discussion to form some kind of: > > > > (1) Key points worth discussing with

levels, styles) and used offline. I am also using SECN (Openwrt) Batman based mesh networking in the deployments I setup in rural places but still many things are centralized (name resolution, content serving, dhcp). Would love to make mesh networking truly decentralized

tried this morning, the survey was still nok, and Pierre told me this afternoon that Michiel told him that the survey should have been reopened : I tried and ... yes, the survey was open again ! I don't know how this is possible, but I like to think that

exciting uses of WebRTC to date, and I hope you'll check out the project at http://webtorrent.io . Nothing works yet and there's still a lot of code to be written, but I'm pretty sure the concept is sound. Feross ✩  blog

effects. If something seems usable enough that I think it reaches the bar that friends could adopt it, and otherwise is excellent, it'll still go in. Otherwise we really would get nowhere... But note the usability requirement! Which very few things pass. Alas, not even Signal - in my experience

Hello Francis, We released our first release of the platform - the "snowden release" :-) But not for the apps yet which are still in beta... But we will have an official release in January ! At the moment we are in the middle of our fund raising, so an interview would

exciting uses of WebRTC to date, and I hope you'll check out the project at http://webtorrent.io . Nothing works yet and there's still a lot of code to be written, but I'm pretty sure the concept is sound. Feross ✩  blog

Project Xanadu" that (allegedly) > had such a content payment system built in. I believe Xanadu is over 50 > years old and still being worked upon by Ted and volunteers. > > > 2015-08-25 10:15 GMT+03:00 Bastien Guerry <bzg@altern.org

solutions?" We are working hard on Cozy so that it can be a good alternative to some of the tools you mentioned ! We are still in beta but we should release a stable versions of apps in january (we already released a stable version of the platform, the "snowden release

working hard on Cozy so that it can be a good alternative to > some of > the tools you mentioned ! > We are still in beta but we should release a stable versions of apps > in > january (we already released a stable version of the platform

Project Xanadu" that (allegedly) > had such a content payment system built in. I believe Xanadu is over 50 > years old and still being worked upon by Ted and volunteers. > > > 2015-08-25 10:15 GMT+03:00 Bastien Guerry < bzg@altern.org > > <mailto

solutions?" We are working hard on Cozy so that it can be a good alternative to some of the tools you mentioned ! We are still in beta but we should release a stable versions of apps in january (we already released a stable version of the platform, the "snowden release

solutions?" We are working hard on Cozy so that it can be a good alternative to some of the tools you mentioned ! We are still in beta but we should release a stable versions of apps in january (we already released a stable version of the platform, the "snowden release

access policies in the browser? I'm slow to let go of the legacy and > relative simplicity when incremental fixes are still possible. > > They also knock on X.509 and DNS in that page. There's been some talk about > namecoin. Anybody follow that closely enough

WebRTC to date, and I hope > you'll check out the project at http://webtorrent.io. Nothing works yet and > there's still a lot of code to be written, but I'm pretty sure the concept > is sound. > > Feross > ✩ blog <http://feross.org/>

issues with the access policies in the browser? I'm slow to let go of the legacy and relative simplicity when incremental fixes are still possible. They also knock on X.509 and DNS in that page. There's been some talk about namecoin. Anybody follow that closely enough to comment

that (allegedly) >> had such a content payment system built in. I believe Xanadu is over 50 >> years old and still being worked upon by Ted and volunteers. >> >>> 2015-08-25 10:15 GMT+03:00 Bastien Guerry <bzg@altern.org

WebRTC to date, and I hope > you'll check out the project at http://webtorrent.io . Nothing works yet and > there's still a lot of code to be written, but I'm pretty sure the concept > is sound. > > Feross > ✩ blog

addition to the peer-review of the original publication) we hoped to foster confidence that we did not miss anything important.  But still that's the normal course of affairs in science, isn't it? This is not a good idea, it will result in a highly insecure product

recently that Docker announced they can now run on any Linux distribution . I will say that the learning curve on creating Docker containers is still a bit high for how conceptually simple (and beautiful!) Docker is. I was a little taken aback. But they acknowledge this fact all the time

Xanadu" that (allegedly) >> had such a content payment system built in. I believe Xanadu is over 50 >> years old and still being worked upon by Ted and volunteers. >> >>> 2015-08-25 10:15 GMT+03:00 Bastien Guerry < bzg@altern.org

recently that Docker announced they can now run on any Linux distribution . I will say that the learning curve on creating Docker containers is still a bit high for how conceptually simple (and beautiful!) Docker is. I was a little taken aback. But they acknowledge this fact all the time

closed source completely rules it out from being part of the decentralized web. Certainly, open source software that is hosted on a server can still be silently backdoored in some ways -- you can't generally verify that the server is running the same code that's in public source control

close to the 4th, we went with the 11th of February at C4CC ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/63972386 ) Signup is at http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/redecentralize-february-london-meetup-registration-10388404999 Still looking for people willing/wanting to do a 5-10 minute, or 20-30 minute talk on the (related) topic of your choice. Any takers? Cheers Ross

living. But I don't think that requires artificially restricting other people's initiative to do so. This is a colonialist vision, the still dominant vision of out times. Hegemony of a self-proclaimed superior class that knows better will never help us pass this century. > > the forced

close to the 4th, we went with the 11th of February at C4CC ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/63972386 ) Signup is at http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/redecentralize-february-london-meetup-registration-10388404999 Still looking for people willing/wanting to do a 5-10 minute, or 20-30 minute talk on the (related) topic of your choice. Any takers? Cheers Ross

close to the 4th, we went with the 11th of February at C4CC ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/63972386 ) Signup is at http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/redecentralize-february-london-meetup-registration-10388404999 Still looking for people willing/wanting to do a 5-10 minute, or 20-30 minute talk on the (related) topic of your choice. Any takers? Cheers Ross