71–80 of 99 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously, the entire separation of Bluesky from ATProto not happening is my main reason for not trusting it at all. You can't have a protocol owned by a for-profit entity and seriously call it "open"
https://atproto.com/blog/kicking-off-the-atp-working-group https://docs.bsky.app/blog/plc-directory-org
Luke's feedback on the permissioned data proposal is pretty interesting. The current proposal has a kind of locational element to permissions, where a record's URI reflects the access control, and I can understand why that would be jarring. I'm talking with the team about whether we think that's something that could change, and what a change like that would cost. We're still in the collecting feedback phase so it's g…
a meta-note that i think deserves attention: we never ever seen such a level of engagement around a social media protocol as this. count the number of mastodon protocol discussions that have happened, or dispora, or activitypub. they exist as background. matrix maybe comes close if you look at raw count anywhere, but i'd say has no-where near the visibility, doesn't surface/emerge into the public. atproto is succeedi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a meta-note that i think deserves attention: we never ever seen such a level of engagement around a social media protocol as this. count the number of mastodon protocol discussions that have happened, or dispora, or activitypub. they exist as background. matrix maybe comes close if you look at raw count anywhere, but i'd say has no-where near the visibility, doesn't surface/emerge into the public. atproto is succeedi…
> you don't see the CTO coming to chat about it. Speaking as the CTO at Element (and proj lead for Matrix), i feel like i've spent a bit too much time coming to chat about Matrix on HN over the years ;) That said, I agree that Bluesky is doing well in terms of breaking through into mainstream awareness - much more so than Matrix (although obviously big-world-social-media is something of a different beast to distribut…
I've been building a board game community on ATProto. The idea revolves in trying to build the feeling of local clubs but online, instead of "PLAY NOW" being on the landing page (although you can play now if you want) it's organized around clubs. I also wanted to move away from one game oriented community. I play Go and Chess and I would love clubs to be for mixed games. You can create leagues, or tournaments, etc. A…
How do you prevent a player from manipulating game state outside of the app view? There is a subgroup in the Atmo working on games, have you found them yet?
Reading articles like this one, I do think people are trying to put a square peg (their applications) through a round hole (ATProto). The ATProto was designed around all data being public. You write public data to a user's PDS and then any application can read that public data and do something with it. If all data was private (encrypted?) by default then that would defeat half of all of ATProto's goals. Imagine someo…
If the primary user concern is "all data is public", then the utility of ATProto is extremely narrow and will likely lose to something with a different philosophy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree that you need a well designed protocol, but I think for small social, we're drowning in good protocols. A lot of the issues with ActivityPub, for example, come about because of socializing In the Large. Once you're just hanging out in a community it doesn't matter if someone trips and bans you or deletes all your messages; this is par-for-the-course for small social drama. What makes AP so fraught for large sca…
If I do decide to work on a social protocol, I will be keen to not build on existing ones to avoid the prior drama and bikeshedding. (re: the AP vs AT debate pattern that has grown this year) Will definitely "distill" several ideas from them tho! I maintain a space on my chalkboard for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously, the entire separation of Bluesky from ATProto not happening is my main reason for not trusting it at all. You can't have a protocol owned by a for-profit entity and seriously call it "open"
Huh. Tell that to LSP, QUIC, SPDY, GraphQL, WebRTC, BitTorrent, HTTP/2, and other protocols. I guess they weren’t “open” either for the first 5-10 years of their existence either? Weird.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apologies if "worship" came across as calling you a cult, but it doesn't seem that you took what I said too seriously either. Good luck on ATProto, certainly don't want to deal with this kind of replies from you or Dan every time criticism or concerns come up, maybe once the protocol leaves BlueSky, but let me guess, it's planned for some point in the far future like every other concern?
You guys are really confused about what atproto has to do with Bluesky and how much of the protocol is developed by or managed through Bluesky. It really seems you all think the only company or community doing anything on atproto is Bluesky, when that couldn’t be further from the truth. Have you even paid attention to what’s happening lately?
Stepping back for a momement, it's clear that permissioned data is driven by real world use-cases (Bluesky needs DMs, Tangled needs private repos, etc). However, I think the synergies with the existing atproto needs to be pretty significant to warrant developing yet another encrypted space spec. We already have various double ratchet protocols, Matrix is having a huge boom. From the point of view of an app developer, does everything need to be handled by atproto, or could we accept that atproto is just for the public stuff?
Disclaimer: I have not looked carefully at the permissioned data proposal, but I know atproto reasonably well. Stepping back for a momement, it's clear that permissioned data is driven by real world use-cases (Bluesky needs DMs, Tangled needs private repos, etc). However, I think the synergies with the existing atproto needs to be pretty significant to warrant developing yet another encrypted space spec. We already h…
There's no issue in using ATProto to "link" an external service, like Tangled does with it's "knots" which host the git data.
All of the social stuff (issues, PRs, comments and so on) is on ATProto, and on ATProto you also have a "repository" object, linking to a "knot" object containing the address of the knot.
What's stopping an E2EE DM implementation to use ATProto to point to something like an "accepted matrix server" for all parties, and each having a "matrix identity" ATProto record ? (I don't know about Matrix so idk if this is exactly possible but you get the idea)