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

[Martin Schanzenbach]

On Sat, 2016-11-05 at 18:47 +0100, carlo von lynX wrote:
> 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?

 Why do you think I want you to read the GNS papers? Where is that
coming from? Are you paranoid? 
I did read secushare pages btw. I even watched the latest Datenspur
video. That is why I know you do not need GNS. You are doing it
differently. And it probably works without GNS. I am no expert in
social/secushare. But apparently you think you have some kind of golden
key for the future internet (if only people had to pay a euro every
time they claim that). 
I also never said GNS is doing it the right way. Or even better. In
fact if you read your mails it is your claim to do everything better
and right. Actually that is your argument: "We are doing it the right
way and if you do something else you are wrong and if you don't agree
you are ignorant." (paraphrasing)
Now if you read your mails again and don't see the hubris in them I
cannot help you.

What I know now and took away from this is that GNS is doing something
different and you think that the approach is fundamentally wrong in
your use case.


>

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