Zero Knowledge, a variety of technologies which leverage cryptographic proofs that someone knows something is true, without revealing the knowledge to the verifier. This is useful for privacy, rolling a number of transactions into one bundle, and many other use cases.
I had a friend who worked in assisted living centers, and saw a number of deaths related to falling. The one thing he noticed about those that fell most frequently was that they still drank alcohol. Anecdata from someone in the field, but it was a stark reminder that people who get to an infirm stage in life are still just people, with all the same vices as before.
This is deeply concerning, as many have echoed, because you’re punishing people who are already on your side, for the most part. But it’s also concerning because you claim it’s not deplatforming as other registrars exist. Do you not think they will not follow your lead? Do you intend that only when a country violates human rights in the particular way that happened here that the aggressor’s country will be removed? I cannot know this, but what I can know is you’ve stated you will remove people this time, and hand waved it away as “not deplatforming.” No amount of mental gymnastics will make that not true. Even Cloudflare owned what they did when they removed 8chan. Either way, I have hundreds of domains on Namecheap, and now I’m thinking I’ll need to find a new registrar, lest the track record of the US be something I as a conscientious objecting citizen be held accountable for.
Fair, I missed the word inevitable in their prediction. I do personally believe it to be an inevitability, hence my investing my free time, energy and money into being a part of shaping that future. Ultimately any prediction in technology is defined by the whim of the market, so either my belief is correct and I can help in creating that future in a fairer way than some hyper-PaaS which does not impart an ability to earn or be an active part of that market segment (a future where AWS _is_ the core of computing is a terrifying future to me), or I am wrong, but the cryptography and distributed computing research I'm investing my time into will have beneficial uses regardless.
I think you meant to reply in thread to me since I was the only commenter that said “inevitable” before your post. That being said, I said this was the inevitable state of full decentralization, not that full decentralization was an inevitability. I cannot speak to how the market will ultimately decide on this topic, but I can build towards it as I believe it to be an ideal state in that the computing power of the world is currently sub-optimally used and reaching an equilibrium would be beneficial overall.
I don’t doubt this at all, but I suspect it will extend to all aspects of software, including the OS — it is the inevitable state of full decentralization. However, I expect also that the usage of software in being metered will also be countered by in-kind contributions, in that the power you feed back to the decentralized grid will compensate your use of the software you need.
Disclaimer: I am working on exactly this notion of a decentralized PaaS
This seems advantageous for straight male users, but how would you draw straight female users who benefit from having multiple options on other apps? Asking as a female user of other dating apps.
I don’t think there’d be significant objection to the notion of transgender folks being recognized as transgender if it weren’t for the fact that trans people experience significant amounts of discrimination explicitly associated with that distinction, in the context of a society that perceives a gender binary.
But prison for children. I say this as a woman — I am currently the sole income earner, and will swap roles with my spouse when it is time to have kids. Kids need a lot of attention, it’s a real job, and having a parent home is essential.
> I'm sure VoltDB is great but it's a commercial product and the community edition is licensed as Affero GPL.
Why is it a bad thing that open source software writers want contributions back from commercial entities that grift off their work? AGPL, SSPL, and others are kind of the OSS answer to the riddle of “how do we make open source software viable with companies like Amazon?”
PAKE isn’t about preventing compromise at the serving of the front end. That’s still the responsibility of the server maintainer. PAKE is about reducing damage potential. The responsibility of keeping your servers secure applies regardless of use of PAKE. PAKE just makes it possible that if your database is leaked in some smash-and-grab someone can’t just run a rainbow table against it to suss out passwords against emails.
Ok, but hypothesizing a future where a social media platform is not holding a legal or property presence in Australia, I fail to see how they can enforce it without censorship. And a future in which that platform is fully decentralized and potentially even uncensorable, they’re going to do what, outlaw math? Firewall themselves off from the rest of the world? I know they’re already trying on the former. They’re going to be in for a rough awakening when they realize they’re shutting the door on an economic revolution.
> If the social media companies fails to do so then THEY will be liable for the defamation.
How do they collect if the company isn’t even inside Australia? What if it’s not a company at all and all identities are private (i.e. decentralized)? Or are they trying to make these kinds of services illegal?
Right, but that’s kind of the irony — the collection of atrocities that stain the tapestry of America’s history are readily accessible, actively acknowledged on repeat on social media (ad infinitum at times, even), and (mostly, depending on locale) even taught in public schools. Trying to even discuss the notion on WeChat could send you to reeducation camps. Here it’s a series of chapters in textbooks.
That’s not the point. OP tried to draw a comparison that private enterprises in the US do the same thing — they do not. The false equivalence ends at the point where the CCP actively controls what these companies do in terms of enforcement, and the mass surveillance apparatus is intrinsically linked.
There’s a huge difference between a private company banning someone from their platform and a government that has a secret police which takes you away at night to a labor camp because you didn’t simp for the People’s party.
Right, I guess what I was more critical of wasn’t a hash confirmation of associated data — it’s more the trivial bypass of this when the key is compromised in the first place. Theoretically, a user doesn’t export their key, or if they do, it’s under a tightly controlled manner which limits surface area for exposure to only the source and destination. So in this scenario, the only way a private key is exposed is if one of the user’s devices is compromised, in which case the promise of associated data is meaningless.
How does Keybase address this problem completely? If an attacker gains possession of a key, they don’t have to change ownership, they just assume the role of that user. NB: I know they could feasibly only do this once before the key is considered burned by detection from the original user, so I’m somewhat lost here. Presumably you could mean that revocation of a known stolen key would be easy to point to, but any PKI can handle this.
Edit: I’m aware of Keybase itself doing per-device salts, but under a sophisticated attack, I don’t see a workaround here unless they’re doing some multi-party signing process with authorization against the Keybase server who acts as a second party, but even then, a sophisticated attacker who has control of the user’s machine impersonating someone would still be able to circumvent this.
It can effectively be the same. Consider ECDH as key agreement, passed into a KDF such as a hashing algorithm, potentially with additional input, then using that value as the private key — the security assumptions then become the Square Computational Diffie-Hellman and whatever assumption(s) are in the hashing algorithm, the former is proven to be equivalent difficulty to the general CDH assumption.
The names don’t change one has a subvariety: the falsehood that last names might change, but first names don’t. Transitioning showed me firsthand how many common products make changing specifically the first name impossible.
I’ve really taken a liking to making my projects require nothing but docker to build successfully. This mostly works until building something like a desktop UI or mobile application. For the former, I make it with create-react-app and wrap it with electron if I can, and similarly react native for mobile. (If higher performance on the UI side were ever necessary then I can consider native UIs, but usually I’m the only developer on personal projects and I want it to run on any platform and UI performance is minimal concern) Keeping it compartmentalized to a docker compose file (and a simple sanity check script to ensure that Docker and whatever is needed for react/electron/react native in the UI case is installed is then pretty easy to share between projects. It makes it simple to have builds work no matter what machine I’m on, and easy for devs that want to hack on top of it to just clone it and go.
The question that follows would be: how do you know what was intended to be less performant versus optimized on-demand? The intentions can be easily inferred when the query at hand was a simple join, and to no surprise, many cloud database offerings _do_ provide optimization automation (Azure SQL will for example even automatically add obvious indexes if you let it). But what if the query did need to scan all the rows in a join, but was only a one-off, and you didn’t want to pay the continued perf and storage costs of maintaining an index? The cloud provider can’t know that, and even with proactive measures (“make it slower” can’t work because speed is part of the product design, and budget controls can only go so far before it impacts your own customers) there’s only so much that can be done. The choice of infinity scale tools comes with infinity scale costs, and so there’s a responsibility that engineers using these tools need to understand what they’re accepting with that choice.
That infamous case was the result of poor password use followed by an unguarded login page with no retry limit. This isn’t meant to victim blame, but it’s to also point out Apple too was a victim on this, they have a far stronger commitment to privacy compared to other companies.