On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 09:57:12PM +0100, Christian Grothoff wrote:
> Carlo, the paper Martin send me about this is this one:
>
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.131.9709&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>
> So it's neither exactly internal to the cooperation nor simple
> authentication
On 11/06/2016 06:48 PM, carlo von lynX wrote:
> I asked for use cases
> that would suggest not to try out the silver bullet approach first
> and you are bringing up a corporate scenario. That's cool. Let's look
> into that:
Carlo, the paper Martin send me about this is this one:
http://citeseerx.
[OT] First of all, sorry if anything I write ends up sounding
unlike the easy peacy chilled out way it sounds when I write it up.
I have a bad habit of pushing people verbally, put it is always
meant in a constructive motivating way... which I know can easily
backfire.. it's a problem of the Intern
First of all, please, could everyone reign in their discussion style a
bit, this is not tor-talk ;-). I think the real issue is that the two
of you are talking past each other, and we really need to get the
emotion out of this.
My view from the sideline:
Carlo is arguing from the perspective of
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 GN
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
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 r
On Sat, Nov 05, 2016 at 04:51:03PM +0100, carlo von lynX wrote:
> 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.
It is the foundation of a whole new class of network securi
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 .gnu
> names anyway. al
On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 19:02 +0100, Christian Grothoff wrote:
> On 11/04/2016 06:46 PM, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This summer I reported https://gnunet.org/bugs/view.php?id=4625
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For many kinds of applications we
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 11:20:45PM +0100, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
> I see now that the public part does not fit into social/psyc. But I do
No, no. It is no problem to do public applications using pubsub,
but I see no constructive use case for your technological idea.
> not fully agree with you
I see now that the public part does not fit into social/psyc. But I do
not fully agree with your social theory. Even if I did the reverse
resolution of PKEYs is just logical. If I can use GNS to resolve
alice.bob.gnu to X then surely GNS should be able to map X to
alice.bob.gnu. Imagine receiving a
> Definitively not. Neither the psycstore nor the existing
> namestore/namecache have the operation needed for what Martin is
> thinking about on the blog. However, the operation *you* are thinking
> about would be local.
Yes, doing it locally is the proper way to do it and
requiring people to ex
Hello Martin, long time no see.
Sorry if this sounded like a rant, I'm just surprised that
after six years gnunet and secushare still don't know each
other as well as they should...
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 06:46:36PM +0100, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
> Yes, this is what reverse resolution is for.
On 11/04/2016 06:46 PM, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
>> > This summer I reported https://gnunet.org/bugs/view.php?id=4625
>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > For many kinds of applications we need to authenticate incoming
>>> > > connections as coming from a certain person or at least from a
>>> > > certain peer.
On 11/04/2016 05:58 PM, carlo von lynX wrote:
> This summer I reported https://gnunet.org/bugs/view.php?id=4625
>
> Apparently this has sparked an exciting philosophical debate on
> social graph reverse resolution:
> https://gnunet.org/gns-reverse-ideas
Actually, in my mind these are similar, may
Hi,
Thanks for the input. I think you need to elaborate more on this for me
though.
First you say:
On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 17:58 +0100, carlo von lynX wrote:
> This summer I reported https://gnunet.org/bugs/view.php?id=4625
>
> >
> > For many kinds of applications we need to authenticate incoming
This summer I reported https://gnunet.org/bugs/view.php?id=4625
> For many kinds of applications we need to authenticate incoming connections
> as coming from a certain person or at least from a certain peer. The exit
> daemon is currently not providing a way to find out who is calling. Resolvin
18 matches
Mail list logo
