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

[carlo von lynX]

On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 06:29:40PM +0100, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
> Okay got. But then you don't need GNS. As in: at all. 

There is certainly a lot of conceptual duplication, but then
again there are constellations where GNS makes more sense
than distributed pubsubs. We found in one particular
constellation of the rendez-vous procedure that GNS would
have a role. By "we" I mean discussions among xrs, t3sserakt
lurchi, tg and me. I'm not making this stuff up alone.

> 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
> system.

Yes, only we need it in a distributed way, not federated.
The idea of doing this way stems from 2003, but as we neared
the target we realized that servers were not a safe place for
the social graph.

> Our discussion hence is pointless and we should end it here. The
> reverse resolution was targeted at GNS, not secushare.

Oh please, that is a really cheap excuse to do things the wrong
way. Be scientific and confront the evidence. I bet you still
haven't read the documents and haven't watched the clip. Why
are we expected to watch all GNS presentations and papers while
you don't bother to learn about why you shouldn't do what you
are doing? And why do you alone think you know better?

-- 
  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
         http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
          irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
         https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/