Live data from Hacker News

Decentralize Messaging

rodarmor.com

31–40 of 103 posts

Re: Decentralize Messaging

#31

Completely agree. For anyone who hasn’t come across it, check out the exciting work being done by developers of the Secure Scuttlebutt protocol: “Secure Scuttlebutt (SSB) is a peer-to peer communication protocol, mesh network, and self-hosted social media ecosystem. Each user hosts their own content and the content of the peers they follow, which provides fault tolerance and eventual consistency.[5] Messages are digi…

I'm really worried about the total amount of data each user will end up lugging around though.

Also, append only => no deletes, correct?

Re: Decentralize Messaging

#32
Protocols and privacy and chat features are all great, but let's not lose sight of the two absolutely killer essential features of every successful chat app / system:

(1) The address book.

(2) The easiest possible signup and setup.

More generally for #1, whatever method(s) you use to find people's contact information and connect with them.

Without that, you could have created the perfect chat experience in every way, but people still won't use it. Because their friends aren't on it and/or they can't find their friends.

A ton of chat apps fail because engineers sit around talking about how to architect things, when the truth is that once you've gotten past the almost-insurmountable hurdle of getting two users onto the system and starting a conversation, the actual mechanism for actually sending messages back and forth is not much more than an implementation detail.

Not that those things aren't important, but they are like 10% of the formula for success, and the other 90% is getting to the point where they can start a chat session.

People's primary need is to communicate. With the people they want or need to communicate with. And via the contact information they have available. (Exchanging contact info for a new service offline is a huge hurdle.) A better experience is better, but at the end of the day, these other concerns will nearly always win out. So you don't get very far trying to use a superior experience as leverage to get people using it. You need to attack that problem more directly.

Re: Decentralize Messaging

#33
post #5

I don't know why everyone hates XMPP. There are multiple solid open source server and client applications for just about every platform. It is decentralized and works well but without google, apple, and facebook making it practical for grandma to use, it doesn't catch on. Well the big players have no incentive to cede control to decentralization.

As a person involved in XMPP development for over a decade, I can tell you why. To date, no one ever developed XMPP chat applications as a product, which can be easily deployed and will work consistently on every platform. Client and server developers were always disjointed, working separately from each other. This lead to great inconsistencies in implementations of even such basic functions like adding a contact. Al…

Any comment on the implementation Google did for hangouts/google talk? It seemed like that should have been enough of a push.

Re: Decentralize Messaging

#34
> messaging apps are all the same, making them easy targets for standardization and interoperability.

This is patently false. Look no further than the other comments in this thread. Nobody can agree on what they want out of the messaging experience. Some want a rich experience like telegram and others want a minimal one like IRC. Should this protocol's features maintain parity with the proprietary and centralized services? Better develop them rapidly to keep up. Should they stagnate to maintain interoperability across an ecosystem? Good luck being competitive. We haven't even gotten to the features themselves and I promise you there will be irreconcilable differences. Does the protocol maintain message history or is it ephemeral? What is the privacy model? Can we delete messages on other servers due to GDPR? When you spend time at the business end of the messaging space, these dichotomies flow endlessly, without consensus, and they cover the entire horizon of the space.

If you think you know the answers to these questions, you don't, because you're solving the wrong problem. If you want to decentralize messaging you have to solve the problem of how to agree to disagree while maintaining interoperability for a shared experience. Let me just make that last point clear: you cannot design a messaging protocol where one party sees emojis and the other doesn't. That doesn't work because you can't lose social information.

Matrix has failed to solve this problem. We need a new approach. What will emerge to finally conquer this space?

Re: Decentralize Messaging

#35
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like gtalk using XMPP?

XMPP uses XML. IRC is simpler and can be used without any specialized software, and was designed like that, so that you can use without specialized software (I have used IRC on computers before installing a IRC client)

[deleted]

Re: Decentralize Messaging

#37

Isn't this, at least in part, the goal of OStatus/Mastodon? It's a great idea but I find it humorous and ironic that many mastodon admins circulate block lists specifically meant to cut off nodes. I would prefer that users just use the block features available (and adding the ability for a user to block nodes or apply blocklists if they want to, but not for admins to make that decision for them).

It's a shame you say "Mastodon" when we want to say "ActivityPub".

Federating an RDF graph is powerful.

Re: Decentralize Messaging

#38

We could decentralize things more, but then people will point to decentralized communication and claim it's dangerous because it helps drug dealers and pedophiles.

thats why its best to extend email . it's already decentralized and people don't claim it helps drug dealers. i think the worst part of centralized services is they made police and states complacent and depend on constant spying

Re: Decentralize Messaging

#39
This is what I’m working on with Aether (https://getaether.net). A mass-communication method owned by no one, like email is owned by no one. It’s a modern, decentralised Usenet.

I used to call it ‘email for mass communication’ but it confused people, since it’s not based on email, so I stopped calling it that. That’s the goal though.

I also gave a talk on it at the Internet Archive last week, if you want a quick intro in video from. https://archive.org/details/12120iadweb (My part starts at 1:13:30). If you have any questions, happy to answer.

Re: Decentralize Messaging

#40
post #38

We could decentralize things more, but then people will point to decentralized communication and claim it's dangerous because it helps drug dealers and pedophiles.

thats why its best to extend email . it's already decentralized and people don't claim it helps drug dealers. i think the worst part of centralized services is they made police and states complacent and depend on constant spying

For 99% of the population email is extremely centralized.
Post reply on HN