[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Martin Schanzenbach
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] Reverse resolution of VPN/GNS
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 18:29:40 +0100

On Sat, 2016-11-05 at 16:51 +0100, carlo von lynX wrote:
> 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.

Okay got. But then you don't need GNS. As in: at all. 
You just need a DB with name/key mappings. Any IM messenger today has
that. You don't need a more sophisticated DHT-based decentralized name
Our discussion hence is pointless and we should end it here. The
reverse resolution was targeted at GNS, not secushare.

> > 
> > 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.
> _______________________________________________
> GNUnet-developers mailing list
> address@hidden

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

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