A Social Filesystem • Hacker News Board

Re: A Social Filesystem

#241

Post by verdverm » Wed, Jan 21, 2026, 7:17 AM UTC

ximeng wrote: post #239

verdverm wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bnewbold's comment on GitHub is still the best resource. It's far more specific in scope and details. Paul's note is more theoretical / philosophical

https://github.com/bluesky-social/atproto/discussions/3363 - maybe this one?

yes, that is the one everyone is using as a guiding light for where we think Bsky is headed for their private data needs, which is group-shared / not e2ee because key mgmt is an unsolved problem at scale. They need to support creators with subscriber only content. E2EE will emerge from the messaging space first, i.e. Signal / MLS like

Bsky is likely to put out a short-term gap filler this year for personal-private data, which kind of already exists today for Bsky only. This work would make that same feature in the per-user repo available to all apps. Right now it's hard coded to a specific NSID and single db row

Re: A Social Filesystem

#242

Post by theshrike79 » Wed, Jan 21, 2026, 8:52 AM UTC

wink wrote: post #188

japanuspus wrote: post #162

> Identity -- This is a difficult problem. My hope is that in 5 years, I will not have anything in my feeds that have not been signed in a way that I can assign a trust level. Here in the Nordics, we are already seeing messaging apps such as [hudd] that require government issued ID to sign in. I want this to spread to everything from podcasts and old-school journalism to the soccer-club newsletter, so that I can alwa…

So you're simply not interested in reading any random website by random people who don't see a benefit of establishing any form of trust, especially if should not be connected to their official government IDs? Or to put it differently: Where should this come from, and which issuer would you trust? And why should anyone else agree with you that this is good?

I trust person A, person A trusts B

When I browse to random site, I can see in my browser that A's first level contact trusts this site.

Now I can make a decision based on the amount of trust I have on A. Maybe after exploring the site I can mark specific pages or the whole domain as trusted, so people in my network can see the same.

On a larger level I might trust the Country of Finland, who will only mark their official sites as Trusted. This way I instantly know if I'm on an official site or something pretending to be one.

Re: A Social Filesystem

#243

Post by geokon » Wed, Jan 21, 2026, 7:37 PM UTC

verdverm wrote: post #106

geokon wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. It's an important problem, but I think this just isn't done at the Record layer. Nor can you? You'd probably want to do that on the person-key->username service (which would have some log-in and way to tie two keys to one username) 2. In a sense that's also not something you think about at the Record level either. It'd be at a different layer of the stack. I'll be honest, I haven't wrapped my head entirely around…

2. The point of the PLC is to avoid tying identity to keys, specifically for the point that if you lose your keys, you lose your identity. In reality, no body wants that as part of the system 3. The soup means you need to index everything. There is no Bluesky server to send things to, only your PDS. Your DID is how I know what PDS to talk to to get your records

I guess what I'm asking is why does connecting multiple public keys to one identity something that has to be part of the Record? Why is that not happening as a separate process?

I'll try to read up more on this topic! I do feel I'm missing some pieces here