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

Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

app.radicle.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 299 posts

Re: Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

#41

Post by Fice »

est wrote: post #4

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/…

> We need a way to embed project metadata into .git itself, so source code commits don't mess up with wikis and issues.

Fossil (https://fossil-scm.org) embeds issues, wiki etc. into project repository.

Re: Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

#42

Post by bawolff »

cloudhead wrote: post #28
bawolff wrote: post #24

I wish people would define precisely what they mean by "peer to peer" (or more commonly, "distributed"). Its such an ambigious term now it can mean anything when used as a buzzword.

I haven't seen the term misused very often - the way it is defined in Radicle and most other peeer-to-peer systems is how Wikipedia defines it[0]; specifically this part: "Peers are equally privileged, equipotent participants in the network". So a peer to peer system is one where all participants are "equally privileged in the network". This usually means they all run the same software as well. [0]: https://en.wikipe…

I mean, that definition doesn't fit with supernodes ("seed" nodes in your design) but that is a nitpick.

I guess im mostly just wondering what are the properties you are trying to accomplish. Like there is talk of publicly seeding repositories that are self-certifying, but also using noise protocol for encryption, so what is the security model? Who are you trying to keep stuff secret from? It is all very confusing what the project actually aims to do.

Mostly all i'm saying is the project could use a paragraph that explains what the concrete goals of the project are. Without buzzwords.

Re: Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

#44

Post by zlatan_todoric »

wokwokwok wrote: post #40
lftherios wrote: post #15

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.

I read the documentation and this stands out to me: > Radicle repositories, which can be either public or private, can accommodate diverse content including source code, documentation, and arbitrary data sets. If this is, basically, a peer-to-peer file sharing application, what part of the protocol handles dealing with abuse? Otherwise, how is this different from the previous generation of file sharing applications (…

you can choose which nodes you follow and which nodes you block - you can even decide that you will seed particular repos and not the entire node.

(P.S. I am working at Radicle)

Re: Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

#45

Post by cloudhead »

wokwokwok wrote: post #40
lftherios wrote: post #15

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.

I read the documentation and this stands out to me: > Radicle repositories, which can be either public or private, can accommodate diverse content including source code, documentation, and arbitrary data sets. If this is, basically, a peer-to-peer file sharing application, what part of the protocol handles dealing with abuse? Otherwise, how is this different from the previous generation of file sharing applications (…

Good question!

One of the key ideas is that each user chooses what repositories they host via pretty fine-grained policies. This means you can easily block content you're not interested in seeding, or simply configure your node to only host content you explicitly allow.

You can also choose which public nodes to connect to if you'd rather not connect to random nodes on the network; though I don't expect most users to go this route, as you are more likely to miss content you're interested in.

Though Git (and thus Radicle) can replicate arbitrary content, it's not particularly good with large binary files (movies, albums etc.), so I expect that type of content to still be shared on BitTorrent, even if Radicle were to be popular.

Re: Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

#46

Post by zamalek »

est wrote: post #4

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/…

Classic git does not evade censorship, such as the extremely recent news concerning Nintendo. An idea like this has been rolling around in my head, and I'm overjoyed that someone has done the hard work.

Re: Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

#47

Post by cloudhead »

bawolff wrote: post #42
cloudhead wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen the term misused very often - the way it is defined in Radicle and most other peeer-to-peer systems is how Wikipedia defines it[0]; specifically this part: "Peers are equally privileged, equipotent participants in the network". So a peer to peer system is one where all participants are "equally privileged in the network". This usually means they all run the same software as well. [0]: https://en.wikipe…

I mean, that definition doesn't fit with supernodes ("seed" nodes in your design) but that is a nitpick. I guess im mostly just wondering what are the properties you are trying to accomplish. Like there is talk of publicly seeding repositories that are self-certifying, but also using noise protocol for encryption, so what is the security model? Who are you trying to keep stuff secret from? It is all very confusing wh…

I've answered the use-case question here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39601588

But yes, we're not officially launched yet and the website is going through a rewrite to offer more clarity, thanks for the feedback.

Re: seed nodes: they are running the same software and work the same way as regular nodes, the only difference is how they're deployed (with a public IP address vs. behind a NAT). But yes, a little bit of asymmetry is needed because of NATs/IPv4.

Re: properties: mainly we need to provide encryption and self-certification to enable a similar user experience as GitHub/GitLab/etc. on a an untrusted peer-to-peer network. Additionally though, Radicle offers a level of censorship resitance and disruption tolerance that GitHub cannot offer.

Re: Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

#49

Post by [deleted] »

2color wrote: post #38

It's been fascinating watching Radicle evolve over the –what seems to be– last 5 years. I attended the workshop at Protocol Berg 2023 and think they built something really powerful and novel. Perhaps the most exciting aspect is that even the collaborative aspect of the protocol is local-first which means you can submit patches and issues without internet and that your team isn't on HN every time GitHub is having prob…

[deleted]

Re: Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

#50

Post by cloudhead »

shackra wrote: post #43

is there any plans to support this use case: offering repositories only to a set of nodes? I can imagine people wanting to collaborate in private but not wanting to be on Github.

Yes, these are what Radicle calls "private" repositories. They are invisible to the rest of the network, and only shared amongst trusted peers. Note that they are not encrypted at rest, which means they cannot be stored on intermediary nodes that are not part of the truste set.
Post reply on HN