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

The AT Protocol

atproto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 109 posts

Re: The AT Protocol

#22

Post by iblablelbli »

grishka wrote: post #19
foodstances wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they can be the center of it and control it, of course.

How could one "control" a federation protocol though?

that's an interesting question, I think spam is part of how... for a proper answer I would look at how SMTP has evolved over time.

Re: The AT Protocol

#24

Post by mdaniel »

jacooper wrote: post #4

This looks interesting. https://atproto.com/docs

You seem to have misspelled "misguided". https://atproto.com/specs/xrpc invents their own RPC, because the 8000 other ones are somehow insufficient for their Web3 ways? Bonus points for https://atproto.com/specs/xrpc#authentication

And that's not even getting into "oh, ok, so my cousin is going to create his own DNS entry, is he?" https://atproto.com/guides/identity#identifiers

https://atproto.com/lexicons/atproto-com#comatprotocreateses... seems to be missing any 2FA parts, spitting in the face of years of "don't get phished" learning

Re: The AT Protocol

#25

Post by wmf »

skyfaller wrote: post #14

Can anyone explain why Bluesky is making a new protocol instead of using ActivityPub like Mastodon? What advantages would it have over ActivityPub? https://activitypub.rocks/ Worth noting that ActivityPub is an official W3C recommended standard. Is it just Not Invented Here syndrome? This could lead to https://xkcd.com/927/

There are some technical differences like AT storing all content in a Merkle tree so it's easier to replicate, check integrity, etc. It's not clear to me how valuable these features will be. Perhaps the biggest difference is that they've introduced a username->server indirection layer.

Re: The AT Protocol

#26

Post by grishka »

iblablelbli wrote: post #22
grishka wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could one "control" a federation protocol though?

that's an interesting question, I think spam is part of how... for a proper answer I would look at how SMTP has evolved over time.

SMTP started without proper authentication so anyone could spoof anyone's address. Most of those extensions try to fix this. But ActivityPub, for example, has authentication built-in from the beginning in the form of HTTP signatures.

Re: The AT Protocol

#27

Post by ape4 »

tsukikage wrote: post #2

...anyone else click through expecting a discussion of the Hayes command set, or just me?

Yes. Perhaps like Telegram refers to an important earlier communication medium.

Re: The AT Protocol

#28

Post by sneak »

skyfaller wrote: post #14

Can anyone explain why Bluesky is making a new protocol instead of using ActivityPub like Mastodon? What advantages would it have over ActivityPub? https://activitypub.rocks/ Worth noting that ActivityPub is an official W3C recommended standard. Is it just Not Invented Here syndrome? This could lead to https://xkcd.com/927/

ActivityPub isn’t a great protocol and ties your identity to your homeserver.

Re: The AT Protocol

#29

Post by askvictor »

tsukikage wrote: post #2

...anyone else click through expecting a discussion of the Hayes command set, or just me?

Me too; particularly as I've been using them quite a bit recently; AT lives on in embedded system network comms (e.g 4G, wifi, ethernet and/or bluetooth modules - the ESP32/ESP8266 has AT command support). It's really expanded a lot these days - you can do http(s) and mqtt requests, and even run a web server without having to touch a TCP stack.
Post reply on HN