On 7/27/2013 5:57 AM, Randolph D. wrote: > In General you are right, but the model could be as well: 5000 Users > connect to one Server, this Server provides the Chat for These peope.
Then it's even a less competent design. A single server is a single point of failure -- also a single point to issue subpoenas, a single point to compromise, a single point to monitor or subvert. Compare to, say, GnuPG (he said, in a desperate attempt to make this on-topic), where it's decentralized. I don't have to trust any machine except my desktop PC. There's no single point of failure. The comparison to IRC is ... weird. Think about it: IRC never claimed to be privacy-protecting software and the IRC design is in many ways deeply at odds with privacy. Using it as the basis for privacy-protecting software is kind of surreal. ... I also note that about 30 minutes ago, a representative of the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) posted a one-star review of GoldBug in which he said that CCC had never heard of GoldBug, despite GoldBug claiming to be associated with CCC. About five minutes ago the GoldBug project admin disabled reviews and the one-star review is no longer visible. This kind of behavior on the part of the GoldBug project leaders is deeply irresponsible. This, by itself, should persuade people to not use it. Responsible programmers *welcome* criticism -- we don't suppress it. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
