Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Freenet, a peer-to-peer platform for decentralized apps

freenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 302 posts

Re: Show HN: Freenet, a peer-to-peer platform for decentralized apps

#81

Post by blamestross »

sanity wrote: post #23
nurumaik wrote: post #9

I think better approach for "ghost keys" would be requiring X amount of crypto to be sent to 0x0 (burning). Current implementation (requiring donation to freenet) basically gives freenet foundation infinite reputation (including any other potential project that would accept ghost keys as identity), kinda breaking the decentralization aspect

Ghost keys will ultimately be just one of a menu of options for bootstrapping reputation in a decentralized reputation system. They have the advantage of simplicity, anonymity, and helping to fund the project, but as you correctly point out - they are centralized. A cryptocurrency-based solution like you suggest will undoubtedly be one of a menu of reputation bootstrapping options that will develop over time.

Reputation systems have been a theoretical idea for a while, but we haven't come up with anything sybil-proof without centralized identity management. "we have a menu" sounds a lot like "we don't actually have any viable plan" in this case.

Don't get me wrong, this is awesome. I think it is built on a subtlety bad premise. I think it is time to start build organizational nomic games on this sort of contract system, literal organization governance, for systems like this to thrive.

Re: Show HN: Freenet, a peer-to-peer platform for decentralized apps

#82

Post by Groxx »

sanity wrote: post #77
Groxx wrote: post #7

Neat. I've been wanting to see WASM-defined network behavior like this for a while (yay arbitrary consistency algorithms!), I'll have to explore it in more detail :) (the main thing I've been wanting to try: rather than graphql, send a WASM blob along with your request to a server, and just run it to filter fields in the response / pipeline requests / define "fail if any err / pair errors with requests" for concurren…

Thank you, that's actually an idea I considered a while ago - embed some wasm in a GET request (which retrieves complete contract state from the network) that could pre-process the state before returning it to the requestor. The issue was that Freenet requires that intermediate peers can cache the contract state as they're passing it back to the requestor so in the end I decided against it, but might revisit in the f…

yea, there's a lot of scenarios it doesn't make sense in imo. and even with processing-gas-limits it's still kinda weird and harder to prevent abuse on (e.g. you can't predict costs because you don't know what requests it might send next - graphql's declarative approach helps it here).

but for e.g. mobile apps with a trusted backend? probably great. you could even just send hashes of the WASM blobs because they will often be identical (and the full blob if that fails), and some serialized data to serve as args that vary (e.g. page-size limit of the third internal request), and you'd have an absurdly flexible system with fairly small requests. I'm just not sure how small, or if it'd end up computationally worth it compared to graphql / sparql / etc.

Re: Show HN: Freenet, a peer-to-peer platform for decentralized apps

#83

Post by Groxx »

blamestross wrote: post #81
sanity wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ghost keys will ultimately be just one of a menu of options for bootstrapping reputation in a decentralized reputation system. They have the advantage of simplicity, anonymity, and helping to fund the project, but as you correctly point out - they are centralized. A cryptocurrency-based solution like you suggest will undoubtedly be one of a menu of reputation bootstrapping options that will develop over time.

Reputation systems have been a theoretical idea for a while, but we haven't come up with anything sybil-proof without centralized identity management. "we have a menu" sounds a lot like "we don't actually have any viable plan" in this case. Don't get me wrong, this is awesome. I think it is built on a subtlety bad premise. I think it is time to start build organizational nomic games on this sort of contract system, l…

There are tons of sybil-proof systems if you don't include signal from sources by default, but instead opt them in by hand. E.g. use a web of trust and then choose who you trust. It doesn't matter if there are trillions of accounts you don't trust, because you don't trust them.

Re: Show HN: Freenet, a peer-to-peer platform for decentralized apps

#84

Post by Groxx »

alun wrote: post #44
sanity wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our intention is that Freenet will only consume surplus resources, but we plan to build a reputation system that could have a notion of "karma" that is earned by providing resources to the network. This karma could be used to gate access to resources, for example like a VIP chat room on River. So there are a lot of possibilities but for now users are motivated by a desire to see the network succeed, and that seems to…

Seems reasonable to build a cryptocurrency around this. The network could pay the cryptocurrency out to users dedicating resources. Have you thought about that?

Ghostkeys seem like part of a decent approach to this, since it's a "prove contribution without dictating how" system. Crypto/cash/"they gave me a high five, they're cool" are all equally valid, and it's not a proof of work that costs substantial money to operate: https://freenet.org/ghostkey/

Currently it appears centralized, but in principle it'd be pretty easy to shift it to a web of trust instead, and hosts can choose what they allow and how much they value it.

(zero-knowledge proofs seem probably rather important to adopt tho, as right now it'll tie you to a stable pseudonym)

Re: Show HN: Freenet, a peer-to-peer platform for decentralized apps

#85

Post by angoragoats »

sanity wrote: post #78
kstrauser wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WTF. These are some of the first things I clicked through on that page: - https://www.mail-archive.com/devl@freenetproject.org/msg5534... - https://www.mail-archive.com/devl@freenetproject.org/msg5534... Gee, I can't imagine how that mailing list could ever be toxic.

Not sure what you mean but I stand by every word I said in that thread.

Holy shit. I’m a long-time admirer of freenet and you just single handedly destroyed any positive view of the project I may have held. Get a fucking grip and seek help if you can’t.

Re: Show HN: Freenet, a peer-to-peer platform for decentralized apps

#86

Post by lallysingh »

sanity wrote: post #46
qcl820DV34 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that the original name, "Freenet", was repurposed for a different codebase.

Different codebase, same purpose. This isn't even the first time we did a ground-up redesign/rewrite of the Freenet codebase, we did this in 2008 with the 0.7 release.

Should've called the new one Freenet 2 or Freenet NT.

Re: Show HN: Freenet, a peer-to-peer platform for decentralized apps

#87

Post by outside2344 »

sanity wrote: post #78
kstrauser wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WTF. These are some of the first things I clicked through on that page: - https://www.mail-archive.com/devl@freenetproject.org/msg5534... - https://www.mail-archive.com/devl@freenetproject.org/msg5534... Gee, I can't imagine how that mailing list could ever be toxic.

Not sure what you mean but I stand by every word I said in that thread.

A wise boss of mine, after reading a set of threads that I wrote like this, asked me to go think for a day on the difference between "being right" and "being effective."

Some of the things you say in these threads might be "right" but I can assure you that many of them are not effective, which is counterproductive to the goal you are trying to achieve.

Re: Show HN: Freenet, a peer-to-peer platform for decentralized apps

#88

Post by sanity »

angoragoats wrote: post #85
sanity wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you mean but I stand by every word I said in that thread.

Holy shit. I’m a long-time admirer of freenet and you just single handedly destroyed any positive view of the project I may have held. Get a fucking grip and seek help if you can’t.

[flagged]

Re: Show HN: Freenet, a peer-to-peer platform for decentralized apps

#89

Post by blamestross »

Groxx wrote: post #83
blamestross wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reputation systems have been a theoretical idea for a while, but we haven't come up with anything sybil-proof without centralized identity management. "we have a menu" sounds a lot like "we don't actually have any viable plan" in this case. Don't get me wrong, this is awesome. I think it is built on a subtlety bad premise. I think it is time to start build organizational nomic games on this sort of contract system, l…

There are tons of sybil-proof systems if you don't include signal from sources by default, but instead opt them in by hand. E.g. use a web of trust and then choose who you trust. It doesn't matter if there are trillions of accounts you don't trust, because you don't trust them.

Which isn't a web of trust. it is just an "allowlist". Humans are vulnerable to sybil attacks too.

Re: Show HN: Freenet, a peer-to-peer platform for decentralized apps

#90

Post by sanity »

outside2344 wrote: post #87
sanity wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you mean but I stand by every word I said in that thread.

A wise boss of mine, after reading a set of threads that I wrote like this, asked me to go think for a day on the difference between "being right" and "being effective." Some of the things you say in these threads might be "right" but I can assure you that many of them are not effective, which is counterproductive to the goal you are trying to achieve.

I prefer to say what I believe to be true rather than live in fear of how people looking to take offense might misconstrue something.

A culture where people are expected to constantly self-censor to avoid bad-faith interpretations is unhealthy and corrosive.

Post reply on HN