Live data from Hacker News

Earthstar – A database for private, distributed, offline-first applications

earthstar-project.org

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: Earthstar – A database for private, distributed, offline-first applications

#41

Looks a bit like nostr except: - data is named, not content addressed (to support overwrite & deletion), so the primitive data type is associative arrays of names to documents instead of sets of messages - documents are grouped into "shares" and you have to know the "share address" before the server will acknowledge that it indeed has documents in that share. Seems like an interesting approach: part way private, part…

Hmm, a proper capability-based design would, of course, give each user a separate share address, which could be disabled at any time.

Share addresses should be handled much like ssh keys.

Re: Earthstar – A database for private, distributed, offline-first applications

#42

I believe this is superseded by the Willow protocol [0] which was posted here a while back. I tried to read about Willow, but could never make heads or tails of it [1]. It seems to be a hierarchical key value store with a bunch of extra fields for timestamps and cryptographic tokens, but it's woefully short on working examples. Even the recent Rust library [2] is effectively a bunch of abstract classes with implement…

they seem to be the same people behind Willow: https://earthstar-project.org/docs/future#willow-protocol

> All of these above features are enabled by the new Willow General Purpose Sync Protocol we've been working on. It's a new protocol inspired by Earthstar, refining and building upon its concepts. We will be publishing a new website with complete specifications for this protocol.

---

https://willowprotocol.org/more/compare/index.html#compare_e...

> If Earthstar feels very similar to Willow, then that is no coincidence. Willow started out as a reimagining of Earthstar, future Earthstar versions will build upon Willow, and the core maintainer of Earthstar is one of the two Willow authors.

Re: Earthstar – A database for private, distributed, offline-first applications

#44
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, for people who are paranoid about using the services that are designed for these sorts of sharing, like Dropbox, GDrive, GPhotos, and a million others? These theoretical people would suffer the frustrations of setting up and managing their own db for the added privacy? I wonder what they have in those photos and meeting notes that is so sensitive?

I don't use any of those services, though I used to use Dropbox for sharing family reunion photos with older relatives who didn't have the technical skills to do much more than click links to download photos. I am also not a potential user of Earthstar's product. >I wonder what they have in those photos and meeting notes that is so sensitive? As someone who is actively working on documenting my family history using p…

Damn, preach. Epic defense of privacy, doodlebugging. Thank you for giving voice to my thoughts.

Re: Earthstar – A database for private, distributed, offline-first applications

#45
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't use any of those services, though I used to use Dropbox for sharing family reunion photos with older relatives who didn't have the technical skills to do much more than click links to download photos. I am also not a potential user of Earthstar's product. >I wonder what they have in those photos and meeting notes that is so sensitive? As someone who is actively working on documenting my family history using p…

Damn, preach. Epic defense of privacy, doodlebugging. Thank you for giving voice to my thoughts.

I really appreciate you taking the time to read all of that and I appreciate your supportive reply.

Preserving one's privacy to the fullest extent should be one of the main characteristics of a well-informed citizenry and not an excuse to demonize people who exercise their rights to withhold private information from entities that have no business obtaining that private information.

It's too easy today for information to be collected, profiles built, and those profiles used to silently discriminate against a person or a group of people who have something in common. There is limited or no accountability in the system since many of these capabilities evolved much faster than any regulatory framework could. Once the money started flowing in the data collection space, it acted to restrict the pace of regulatory development since some of those monies were spent to lobby individuals or groups who had the ability and the responsibility to protect privacy rights.

Those of us normal people out here who all contributed to the widening of the data stream by signing up as users of these predatory apps and services are the ultimate losers, having effectively ceded control of our own privacy rights to the extent that we can all be easily profiled, monitored, and predictive tools can be configured to allow any new business relationship to be an adversarial relationship where a profile of the new customer informs the service provider about how they should treat the new customer in order to maximize profits from that individual.

It's wrong. It's predatory. It's an unfortunate consequence of the selfish greed that has become an acceptable lifestyle choice for many in the software industry.

But, here I sit. I'm old and I ramble and at the end of the day my words are weak signal in a high background noise stream that looks exciting to the adventurous ones too inexperienced to understand the risks they ask us all to accept.

Re: Earthstar – A database for private, distributed, offline-first applications

#46
post #41

Looks a bit like nostr except: - data is named, not content addressed (to support overwrite & deletion), so the primitive data type is associative arrays of names to documents instead of sets of messages - documents are grouped into "shares" and you have to know the "share address" before the server will acknowledge that it indeed has documents in that share. Seems like an interesting approach: part way private, part…

Hmm, a proper capability-based design would, of course, give each user a separate share address, which could be disabled at any time. Share addresses should be handled much like ssh keys.

I haven't used this, just explored the docs a bit, so maybe I'm misunderstanding, but my feeling is that one-share-per-user is too small--you could only use that to chat with yourself.
Post reply on HN