> -----Original Message-----
> From: p2p-hackers On Behalf Of Bill Broadley
> Sent: December 6, 2016 6:52 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] p2p vs piracy vs corp/gov dictates
> 
> I believe what's needed to fix p2p and allow p2p to match more traditional
> providers like dropbox, box.com, skype, gmail.com, etc. is a 2 tiered
> approach.

My thoughts exactly, but for different reasons.

I personally don't really care about p2p (file) sharing.
What I'd like to get is a better control over the privacy 
of my online communications in general.

Basically, my starting point was that I wanted a self-hosted 
analog of WhatsApp/Skype that can also talk to other instances 
of the same. Iterated on it a bit, abstracted this and that and
here's what I have so far:

1. Clients register and communicate with their base server.

   There are no provisions for migrating from one server to
   another. At least not initially.

2. Every client has an inbound message queue on its server.

3. Clients may "pair" between themselves, establishing a 
   relationship. Once paired, they will be able to post 
   messages into each other's queue.

   More precisely, once paired, a client will instruct their
   server to start accepting messages into its queue from its
   new peer.

4. Pairing can be local, or it can be between the clients on
   two different servers.

5. Each client has a unique ID and a public/private key pair.
   Public key is registered with client's server during when
   it signs up.

6. So the pairing is basically an exchange and verification 
   of public keys between the clients. Once paired, clients
   will have everything they need to communicate privately,
   so all further client traffic can be encrypted end-to-end.

   Manually verifying keys is obviously a lot of joy, but it 
   can be automated for same-server clients IF they have 
   rudimentary trust in their server.

   Verification may also be automated to a degree if a client 
   "pins" other clients' manually verified keys to some sort 
   of "key list" on its server. So the next local client may 
   piggy-back on that and skip the manual verification step.

It's a simple 2-tiered p2p private message delivery system.
Do one thing, do it well and then extend by building on top
of it if needed.

For example, it can have:

a. A way for clients on different servers to search for each 
   other by some public attributes, e.g. an email address.

b. A way for servers to post into client's queue, to allow
   for things like client's online status notifications. 

   That is, if I suddenly drop offline, my server will let 
   all my paired peers know about the fact.

Thoughts?

Alex


_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers

Reply via email to