Thanks for the response Simon - don't get me wrong, I totally agree with what we're doing here. I'm not questioning the project, goals, or methods. I do think there is value in incremental chances on the other end of the spectrum, I think if both succeed the more power to us, and I hope that there is great success with GNUnet and look forward to being able to help more hands-on later in the development cycle as the application level is ready to be addressed.
Cheers Nick On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Simon Hirscher <[email protected]>wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Nick Jennings <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Because every project [again: I know > >> of] is just paying attention to one or, at the maximum, two of those > >> points and on the other hand makes it damn hard or simply impossible > >> to solve those other two or three issues at the same time. > > > > I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. By trying to solve one or > two > > of the 4, it makes solving the other two harder? > > Not necessarily. What I meant was that projects tend to focus on one > or two of those four points. In order to fulfill them, however, and > also due to restricted resources (time, developers etc.) they neglect > the other two – which, in turn, might indeed mean that they decide to > use technologies that only enable them to solve a strict subset of > those problems. Web technologies are a classic example – because you > can't trust the certificate authorities, you're running 3rd party code > all the time, and don't even get me started on cookies and the like. > > > To say that you can't, for instance, provide self-determined data storage > > because there is a possibility it could be compromised, is like saying > you > > can't run an HTTP server because it could be hacked. There is value in > > making things better, and giving users more autonomy, and working toward > > better circumstances. > > > > […] > > > > You *can* provide self determined data storage *and at the same time* you > > can further illustrate the remaining vulnerabilities. > > > > You *can* provide a better method for point-to-point encryption *and at > the > > same time* point out the vulnerabilities in the existing DNS system. > > > > Yes, these things wont be perfect. But they *will* be better, and they > > *will* be progress, and there will be less remaining problems to address, > > which will be highlighted more so, because solving some problems can > improve > > clarity of remaining problems to a larger audience. > > Agreed, there is value in making things better. But I'm here for the > solution to *all four* of our problems. Why? Because… > > 1.) It's within our reach and I hate to settle with anything less than > what's possible. > > 2.) We are facing the biggest adversary one could possibly imagine: > The NSA. (Also: other intelligence agencies and some huge companies' > CEOs, all of which are having wet dreams about big data). With respect > to their resources, "better" and "some progress" is just not good > enough. > > 3.) We, the SocialSwarm, set out to create an actual alternative to > Faceboogle – for the masses. That however means that we only have one > single shot to get it right. People won't follow us from one platform > to another, more secure one every year. > > On a similar note: > I'm actually a bit surprised that there are people on this list > complaining about those four requirements. If they really wanted to be > a part of the SocialSwarm initiative and help with creating a secure > Faceboogle alternative that's actually ready for mass adoption, I > wonder what they were thinking this was going to take? A bit of HTML > thrown onto some web server? No offense guys (and sorry for the harsh > and probably even unjustified words). If you're not down, that's > absolutely fine. Keep doing what you're doing. Because, as Nick said, > there IS value in making things better! > > As for me, I think this is going to be my last post on this topic for > the time being. Everything's been discussed extensively, now, and I > should better invest my time in finally finishing reading tg's paper > on the GNUnet/PSYC/secushare API. >
