iovoid

If you look at the incident details it also claims most services were impacted.

> Git Operations is experiencing degraded availability. We are continuing to investigate.

https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/n07yy1bk6kc4

The whitepaper says:

> all the admins and owners — those who have the ability to change the team — must be on the same home server

Maybe with easy multi-accounting it could be made less annoying, but this seems like a big limitation for a federated system.

Anubis is not meant to fully stop bots, only slow them down so they don't take down your service. This kind of bot detection is meant to prevent automation.

The hash-based one (SPHINCS+) is probably the easiest to understand as its security hinges on hashes being secure, and some statistics.

I found https://er4hn.info/blog/2023.12.16-sphincs_plus-step-by-step... to be a nice introduction.

I think the author misdiagnoses the problem, and the proposed solution simply hides the centralization instead of removing it.

The reason AWS is expensive is not because of IPv4, or the datacenters. It's mostly in their software/managed offerings, and the ability to quickly add more servers. If you are a "serious company" and you don't want to pay AWS or a similar company, renting a rack and colocating your own servers (either within your premises or in a datacenter) is doable and done by lots of companies.

I disagree that certificates have caused centralization, and they're not something separating the haves and have-nots and are in no way comparable to having or not a mainframe. HTTPS becoming pseudo-mandatory didn't push people into having their own (sub)domains, which is nowadays the only requirement to obtain a certificate. It already happened out of convenience.

The other point of centralization mentioned is DNS, which tailscale doesn't avoid at all. MagicDNS still relies on the ICANN root, as does the tailscale control plane. And if all you wanted was a free subdomain, there are plenty of people offering that.

If you are behind CGNAT, tailnets aren't particularly less centralized, as traffic has to flow through the DERP servers. I doubt tailscale can keep providing these free of charge when the volume is in the tbps instead of the gbps.

I agree that tailscale (and similar solutions) help in the last remaining case, which is accessing your computer that is behind a NAT. I even think they could reach the dozens of millions of users. This is, in my opinion, not enough to claim the title of "the new internet".

Wouldn't there be exactly twice (or twice + 1, if you allow negative fractions) as much fractions, since fractions are represented as two positive numbers (plus a bit if you consider the sign).

(The encoding could be "represent both numbers in binary, put the denominator in the odd bits (LSB = first bit), and the numerator in the even bits" so 2/3 => 10/11 => 1110 => 14)

You can't purchase .com domains on ENS, only import them by providing a DNSSEC-based proof of ownership. This doesn't solve any of the problems with TLDs (ENS won't prevent the TLD operator from taking away your domain) so to get the benefits you have to use a ENS-centric domain like .eth

It's listed, but under geographic TLDs[1] because it's Catalonia's TLD.

Interestingly this TLD only allows website that "to serve the needs of the Catalan Linguistic and Cultural Community on the Internet"[2] which is why http.cat also offers a Catalan version[3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_dom... [2] https://domini.cat/en/rules-of-the-cat-domain/ [3] https://http.cat/?lang=cat

Interesting RIPE labs article about a more foundational change that could be made: https://labs.ripe.net/author/hausheer/scion-a-novel-internet...

You can have both (control over your data and expert backing) if you use open source solutions with an enterprise support plan (RedHat's model).

https://github.com/laverdet/isolated-vm is similar, and used by a competitor that has a similar offer

git creators refuse to migrate because they selected sha1 in the start and because of backwards compatibility its harder to just change it. Also git is a situation where its harder to get a maintainer to push your binary blob. In a database, its more probable that a user includes malicious data. The hash used is not so easy to change, unless you are willing to make the change not backwards-compatible (break existing DBs)

Why choose SHA1 and not something that is collission-resistant like SHA256 or SHA3?

Its a digital collectible game where you can breed cats, and some of them are special (fancy cats). This cat was part of theni initial batch auctioned by the developers.

They bought a cat from the developers, sold with a decreasing price auction (400 ether to 0 ether)

I still wonder why use XOR? Is it to give fake sense of security? One-byte XOR is as safe as caesar cipher... specially when you get big chunks of null bytes AND the model is in the header.