this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
148 points (95.7% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
53911 readers
224 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
💰 Please help cover server costs.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What kind of system that depends on centralized servers can ever be secure from government snooping?
That kind of architecture is completely hopeless in that regard.
Is a encrypted, distributed, P2P architecture realistic though?
XMPP with the OMEMO extension is close, no? While Matrix isn't distributed, it is decentralised like Lemmy and Mastodon, and E2EE by default. That could be the closest thing to what you mean?
I'd argue XMPP is less ideal than Matrix because groups are located on a single server, which makes them easier to take down than Matrix' replicated state.
Running any P2P/decentralized protocol over I2P seems to be the best for privacy and censorship-resistance. I2P already works great for torrents, except for it's speed and lack of users/seeders.
@zabadho@ani.social
The problem always comes down to usability and barrier to entry. Telegram is popular because it's great to use, and doesn't moderate much. More private services rarely (never?) reach the level of usability most people expect, often simply because of it's architecture.
That is true, but it's never been a problem in my relatively long experience with XMPP: some server software can be used as a cluster and distributed, making it highly available (basically, the whole of WhatsApp runs on a fork of ejabberd), and the comparatively tiny resource usage of XMPP contributes to its stability.
XMPP does have a spec for F-MUC (distributed rooms somewhat like Matrix, many years before Matrix) and my rationale as to why it never picked up despite a whole decade of "competition" from Matrix is that it's a problem that just doesn't need solving. The price to pay for it is hefty: Matrix resource usage (bandwidth, CPU, RAM) is insane, its protocol complexity makes it a single-vendor implementation (which is risky on very practical grounds), and it's not even bulletproof for the niche use-case it set to tackle: in the end, your identity server on Matrix remains centralized.
You can tell that I'm partial to XMPP, but that's only after having been a service operator for years, with my original expectations largely favouring Matrix.