[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Reverse resolution of VPN/GNS

From: carlo von lynX
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] Reverse resolution of VPN/GNS
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 16:51:03 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 01:02:30PM +0100, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
> Hmm can you explain why you think that? I think what he tried to say is
> that basically GNS delegations are not needed in the secushare design
> as rendezvous/places are used for introductions leading to <x>.gnu
> names anyway. alice.bob.gnu is not a valid use-case then.
> After introduction you would end up with myalice.gnu anyway. As such
> translating k.zkey back to alice.bob.gnu is not reasonable either
> because it would directly translate to myalice.gnu.
> In fact, being able to link alice.bob.gnu across multiple paths (in the
> social graph) might be unwanted and lead to deanonymization.

Yes, GNS was designed without secushare in mind.. but that is not 
a problem. If you like alice.bob.gnu we have local db info to serve
up the reverse mapping. No need to trade any privacy. Grandpa end-
users we'll probably not be using this syntax anyhow, but we can
still support it.

> I think I know where it is going. But I do not find it particularly
> practical.

I'd like to find the words to say this in a nice way, but I think
you haven't digged deep enough into the subject to know where this
is going. And it's no disgrace, most people haven't. Please don't feel
offended by my harsh way of writing things and try to look into the
documents and the new video from Datenspuren at to try
and catch up with ten years of development on our side.

> @lynX: Btw. in response to the other mail: the one arguing
> ideologically here is you, not me. You think that reverse lookups are
> not useful _in your design_ and in your _"better" world_ of secushare.

You can't just redefine the semantics of "ideological" to your liking.
You made a political statement about any computer having a right to
communicate with any other computer, no matter if there is any social
connection between the owners. You said this is what it has to be and
provided no scientific rationale for that, just a use case that can
and needs to be solved differently than you think. That's why I am 
saying your choice is ideological.

I am saying it is unsafe for GNUnet to undertake the path of wrong
sociological design choices for ideological reasons, so what you are
trying to do, sacrificing privacy for a technical practicality, is
NOT just unuseful for secushare. It is wrong for GNUnet and humanity,
should humanity one day upgrade from the broken Internet.

There is a whole background in sociology here, and since you are not
aware of it you think it's okay to simplify and call it ideology, but
that is just as profound as saying that "P2P" is ideology and there
is no scientific reason whatsoever not to use centralized servers.

> So whenever you say reverse resolution is wrong or it has no use case
> you always have to say "for secushare". This is what irritated me as
> well.

I didn't say that because I see it as wrong. If GNUnet replicates the
mistakes of the broken Internet we might as well fry the project.
GNUnet must also be about understanding the sociological mistakes that
were made in TCP/IP. secushare just happens to be the name of the
project that went ahead in that area. I'd like to say we no longer need
secushare as a project because it fully merged with GNUnet, but GNUnet
isn't ready yet, technically and intellectually.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]