161–170 of 299 posts
Hi HN. I am the co-founder of the project. If you are interested in how the protocol works under the hood, start here: https://docs.radicle.xyz/ Docs are still WIP though.
Does this v3 iteration mean that if I pull Radicle from nixpkgs right now that I might be a major version behind?
[0]: https://app.radicle.xyz/nodes/seed.radicle.xyz/rad:z3gqcJUoA...
There should be a way to run git over i2p. Also, git over yggdrasil should be easy because there are just ipv6 addresses. And, in the worst case, I think 6to4 tunnels would work.
https://geti2p.net/en/blog/post/2020/03/06/git-over-i2p see "Third: Set up your git client tunnel"
But like most things in the I2P ecosystem, not seamless.
That's a neat name! If "seeding" is the word for distribution in a peer-to-peer network, then a "radicle" (not a "radical"!) must be named after: - "In botany, the radicle is the first part of a seedling (a growing plant embryo) to emerge from the seed during the process of germination.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicle
Going to be pretty confusing between Radicle and Radicale ( https://radicale.org/v3.html )
Hi HN. I am the co-founder of the project. If you are interested in how the protocol works under the hood, start here: https://docs.radicle.xyz/ Docs are still WIP though.
Fascinating project! I'm curious what's the business model? it's listed on Crunchbase that you raised 12M$ so I'm assuming you do have plans to make money?
> Radworks is a community dedicated to cultivating internet freedom.
They do not shy away from cryptocurrency technology, though AFAICS that is not directly applied to the Radicle project. Another project of Radworks is Drips [1], to help fund open source.
>
>The easiest way to install Radicle is by firing up your terminal and running the following command:
>
>$ curl -sSf https://radicle.xyz/install | sh
Ah.. my high hopes were immediately dashed by the trash that is curl-bash. What a great signal for thoughtless development, if this project catches on I can't wait to watch the security train wreck unfold. Maybe someday we'll get an "Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative" that doesn't start with the worst possible way to install something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I won't reveal anything about our finances, but the current code base is a little under 2 years old. We've worked on the general problem for over 4 years in total though. The team is around 12 people, split between protocol, cli, tui, web and content. The product is set to launch this month, so we're just starting to onboard users, but many people in the community are already using it, and we've been using it interna…
Sorry, this is sketchy. If you're not clear about your revenue generation and finances, how do I know your project isn't just about harvesting as much user data as possible? Open-source projects obviously need to pay the bills, but if you're not clear on how you are achieving this or hoping to achieve this then there's really zero trust in using this.
It's peer to peer, anyone using the protocol is entitled to share and collect as much data as the protocol permits, and the founders have no more power than any other user.
It's way less sketchy than anybody operating a server and asking you to trust that they're doing so responsibly--which is pretty much everybody.
I don't think that everything can or should be made zero-trust. But if this can, then that's a win.
This looks like a fine project for its purpose, but I think git is already open-source and p2p. You don't need sh What's missing in git is code issues, wikis, discussions, github pages and most importantly, a developer profile network. We need a way to embed project metadata into .git itself, so source code commits don't mess up with wikis and issues. Perhaps some independent refs like git notes? https://git-scm.com/…
While Git is designed in some way for peer-to-peer interactions, there is no deployment of it that works that way. All deployments use the client-server model because Git lacks functionality to be deployed as-is in a peer-to-peer network. For one, it has no way of verifying that the repository you downloaded after a `git clone` is the one you asked for, which means you need to clone from a trusted source (ie. a known…
Another thing is knowing if the commit history has been tampered with without knowing the hash.
The reason for needing to not know the hash is for cases like tornado cash. The site and repo was taken down. There's a bunch of people sharing a codebase with differing hashes, you have no idea which is real or altered.
This is also important for cases where the domain is hacked.
Genuine question ... isn't there an inherent latency issue with Peer-to-Peer? and as such, it makes for a poor user experience on the web. (when you're just downloading files over P2P, this isn't an issue or noticeable - but when you're interacting with a web site, it is) EDIT: why the downvotes? I'm just asking a question.
Because the synchronization protocol (backed by Git) is operating in the background, web frontends are always just querying local data, so it's actually quite fast. You can try browsing the linked repository and see for yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is a very VC-brained comment to make on a peer-to-peer open source project. let's instead ask if there are any single points of failure to the protocol and service, and if so, are those sustainable regarding developer time, effort, and compensation?
Incredible. They throw some indie-sounding buzzwords out and that's enough to make the business model unimpeachable? Over the past few decades we've seen many cynical capitalists riding the wave of "peer to peer open source" for personal gain. It's absolutely within scope to discuss how a company's business model may affect their ability to deliver on the supposed mission.