P2panda: P2P protocol for secure, energy-efficient local-first web applications
p2panda.org
p2panda.org
This week we're wrapping up a long development phase for a new "aquadoggo" version (https://github.com/p2panda/aquadoggo/) - our p2panda node reference implementation. The release will come with a dynamic GraphQL query (filtering, cursor pagination, text search and ordering), blob support, a better configuration interface and a full p2p networking stack (QUIC) with NAT traversal techniques and relays based on libp2p.
Next steps in our current funding period is a showcase app for Android (built with Flutter and Rust FFI bindings from our core libraries), a bee sighting database for scientists in the Brazilian Amazon (in collaboration with https://www.meli-bees.org/).
Further down the lane we're continuing our integration of MLS - as some high-level APIs are still missing - and a capability system. We're definitely not out of ideas yet!
I say this, truly, as constructive criticism: I am probably in your core audience and I bounced off the site.
The specification you find here: https://p2panda.org/specification/
The SDKs you find here: https://p2panda.org/libraries/
The reference node implementation you find here: https://github.com/p2panda/aquadoggo/
For more details what a "client" and a "server" is: https://p2panda.org/learn/networks
A licensing question that pertains to adoption: your license is AGPL, which I'm a fan of except for the practical matter of deploying on Apple's iOS App Store, where Apple's distribution mechanism would make an otherwise well-meaning open source app run afoul of your license.
Do you plan to grant a special license to people building open-source iOS apps?
[edit: typo/clarity]
This would indeed allow for a very different internet and would provide some viable options untethered to big tech as it exists today.
What I hoped for was more of a generic backend for multiplayer games.
But this is even better. It looks like a next-gen bittorrent which natively supports operations?
How did the EU support something like this without worrying about misuse?
It would be fun to build something like a Blender plugin that allows people to cooperate on free 3D models and animations. But it's also unclear whether anyone would be legally liable when something goes wrong.
(Edit: It sounds like we want to avoid legal issues by having everyone run their own local instances. I like that feeling of hosting our own servers. But something just feels odd. Since when are we allowed to be so open? What's the catch?)
> A document is made up of operations published by one or many authors
> Every operation has a previous field containing a document_view_id which refers to document state at the moment the operation was encoded
> DO3: An operation which refers to the current operation in its previous field MUST be sorted next.
As far as I understand, it would be up to the client to present potential conflicts and won't be a valid document until it has been resolved.
This might be limiting for some cases, though so far we could model many applications already with such simple CRDT. It is also possible to add your own or already existing CRDT frameworks on top of p2panda.
Tangentially, I've been interested in this space for a while, and I have a few in-progress projects built on CouchDB. My aim was to offer the offline app for free and monetize through sync / sharing features. This would've mirrored my cost structure (hosting), so I thought it was a pretty fair way to monetize a product.
https://p2panda.org/libraries/
> The core library is shipped both as a Rust crate p2panda-rs with WebAssembly bindings and a NPM package p2panda-js with TypeScript definitions running in NodeJS or any modern web browser.
There are still many places even in developed countries where a stable network connection isn’t guaranteed
In my head, there's a distinction. Consensus can be used for non-commutative operations, whereas signed CRDT chains can operate entirely without any form of "agreement" other than how they are applied (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30560573). I wouldn't call distributed CRDTs "consensus."