cypherpunks

joined 3 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

as i wrote in another thread:

Content addressability is absolutely essential for building something that will last, and BlueSky gets that right. Decoupling the many responsibilities which an ActivityPub instance operator has (especially for identity) is also essential, i think, and while BlueSky’s identity solution is less than ideal it’s much better than ActivityPub and I expect it to improve.

If you’re interested in the topic you probably want to also read the followup post from the same author (after reading the reply linked there from someone on the BlueSky team).

Christine’s analysis is by far the best I’ve read on the topic, but I think she is too dismissive of the possibility that people will actually build things using ATP in a manner more like ActivityPub (where there doesn’t need to be a global view). It’s also possible/likely that ActivityPub will eventually evolve to adopt content addressability (Christine actually built a proof-of-concept of doing that years ago, linked in her blog post, but there doesn’t appear to be any recent progress in that direction), and decouple identity from responsibility for data availability, and adopt something like BlueSky’s composable moderation.

Given their respective advantages over the other, i’m pretty sure that both ATP and AP will make changes which make them more like the other in the coming years.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago

Reading through it, I’m not seeing much in favor of ATP

See the "BlueSky's strengths" section, particularly the last paragraph of it. Content addressability is absolutely essential for building something that will last, and BlueSky gets that right. Decoupling the many responsibilities which an ActivityPub instance operator has (especially for identity) is also essential, i think, and while BlueSky's identity solution is less than ideal it's much better than ActivityPub and I expect it to improve.

If you're interested in the topic you probably want to also read the followup post from the same author (after reading the linked reply from someone on the BlueSky team).

Christine's analysis is by far the best I've read on the topic, but I think she is too dismissive of the possibility that people will actually build things using ATP in a manner more like ActivityPub (where there doesn't need to be a global view). It's also possible/likely that ActivityPub will eventually evolve to adopt content addressability (Christine actually built a proof-of-concept of doing that years ago, linked in her blog post, but there doesn't appear to be any recent progress in that direction), and decouple identity from responsibility for data availability, and adopt something like BlueSky's composable moderation.

Given their respective advantages over the other, i'm pretty sure that both ATP and AP will make changes which make them more like the other in the coming years.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

why bother opening a pathway in the first place

i've never had an IG account myself, but i think your mistake is in assuming that someone accepting your follow request on a restricted IG account is an indicator of desire for chatting with strangers. accepting your follow request might just mean they glanced at your profile and assessed that you aren't a spammer or bot, not that they want to chat with you.

perhaps just need to find out somewhere in the real world where I could bond more easily with real people?

for sure that is a good idea 😂

but there are also many places online where it is much more reasonable to assume people are interested in chatting with strangers.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

In my opinion, yes, the why does in fact matter. This blog post i've linked in other comments in this thread is by one of the authors of the ActivityPub spec. If you care enough to comment about it i recommend reading her analysis of what AT Proto gets right and wrong in comparison with ActivityPub.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

but you have to question why they’re choosing to reinvent the wheel

you don't have to wonder why if you take the time to read about why; see the links in my other comments in this thread if you're curious.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children)

Is there any instance other than Bluesky where people can register?

There aren't "instances" in the ActivityPub sense, where "instance" means single point of failure you're married to (its name is literally part of your identity) which is simultaneously responsible for keeping your data available and curating your view of the rest of the network; AT Protocol decomposes these responsibilities so that they can be delegated independently to different operators.

See https://docs.bsky.app/docs/advanced-guides/federation-architecture and https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/ for details.

There are many people running their own Personal Data Servers, AppViews, Labelers, and Feed Generators, but I'm not aware of anybody else running a large-scale Relay yet (which is one of the things this new foundation says they are planning to work on). I'm also not sure if you can actually create a did:plc using a self-hosted AppView or if maybe you need to use did:web to create a new identity without using their AppView currently.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago

They mention ActivityPub in a few places, such as this blog post.

But I'd recommend https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/ instead, which is the best discussion I've seen so far of the pros and cons of each of the two approaches.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago (12 children)

have you read about why they didn't?

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago

username checks out

 

full text of post:

After over a year of evaluation, NIST has selected 14 candidates for the second round of the Additional Digital Signatures for the NIST PQC Standardization Process. The advancing digital signature algorithms are:

  • CROSS
  • FAEST
  • HAWK
  • LESS
  • MAYO
  • Mirath (merger of MIRA/MiRitH)
  • MQOM
  • PERK
  • QR-UOV
  • RYDE
  • SDitH
  • SNOVA
  • SQIsign
  • UOV

NIST Internal Report (IR) 8528 describes the evaluation criteria and selection process. Questions may be directed to pqc-comments@nist.gov. NIST thanks all of the candidate submission teams for their efforts in this standardization process as well as the cryptographic community at large, which helped analyze the signature schemes.

Moving forward, the second-round candidates have the option of submitting updated specifications and implementations (i.e., “tweaks”). NIST will provide more details to the submission teams in a separate message. This second phase of evaluation and review is estimated to last 12-18 months.

NIST is tentatively planning to hold a 6th NIST PQC Standardization Conference from September 24-26, 2025, in person at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

view more: ‹ prev next ›