HN user
https://github.com/publiusfederalist
This is cool! This is an extension version of the federalist [1] project I was working on earlier! This makes using federalist so much easier!
Way to go! Also, this is really cool that you did this!
I think that there is a bit of a disconnect in those that work on systemd. I agree that a revert makes sense in this case. Most people who will suffer real catastrophic breakage are also NOT usually using rolling-release or bleeding edge systems. This does, in fact, give a small window of time to issue this revert without causing massive harm. I also don't really see much toxicity in this discussion, instead just people arguing points.
As per the earlier drama with some of the Handshake admins and developers trying to bully developers out, I have linked up with some of the other developers who have experienced the same thing from them. We have setup a new discord server (it's brand new).
Looking forward to chatting there!
I actually made a system called federalist [1] that uses mutable torrents. Hope you like it!
I e-mailed him about it days ago.
By the way, are you familiar with Zooko's triangle?
It's been an on-going conversation that's been going on a few days.
If we're talking about the same person, he was the only one who actually encouraged what I was doing and even gave me the idea for Zooko.
However, the admins on their discord, were less than encouraging.
EDIT: As per the same person's advice, I'm going to start a new discord community without the toxicity.
I've decided to begin my own community. Those toxic admins can't control the blockchain.
I also just pushed zooko message [1]. This allows you to encrypt and decrypt messages using only your handshake name.
This is definitely a little bit of a different medium to twitter and likely the '1 post per block' limitation is great in this case. Think before you Zooko, as it's permanent and forever.
[Submission Statement]: Right now, there are a lot of sentiments as it relates to de-platforming on various platforms. I was able to implement a completely decentralized twitter-like microblogging system on top of a blockchain, so this inherits the immutability from the chain with it. Since it uses Handshake, the posts are also name-verified.
I named it in honor of Zooko, one of the original Cypherpunks. Cypherpunks write code.
Onward.
Right now it's in POC form, so it's just using a simple 'zooko:' prepend to identify Zooko messages (Zookos). Since it's completely decentralized on chain, it actually doesn't need ActivityPub or XMPP for help (all you need is the ability to download the chain).
Again, this is a security issue and doesn't in any way reduce the proven efficacy of cryptography. It's pedantic at best, and I am going to stop replying to your comments.
Happy new year.
I agree that the intentions were pure. That said, this isn't a product, but instead, a project with a specific goal of improving internet security by showcasing concepts to the HN community. The discussion within the thread, I think, is indication that it is helping to inch closer to that goal as more users on HN are made aware of the beneficial tools cryptography with Handshake provides.
Are you implying people should feel free to create and obtain a new name on the blockchain using any random website? Also I do not see the list of popular GH names in the link you provided.
The popular names are in the names folder.
I wouldn't recommend obtaining a new name from any random website. I don't think I did so. I'm going to avoid continuing this thread as gaslighting isn't usually something one would wish to engage in, obviously on the receiving end, but on the creator's end too.
I hope you are able to find peace in the next year.
Happy new year to you.
The instructions you pasted are for claiming a name that was pre-reserved when Handshake launched [1]. This is different from creating and obtaining a new name on the blockchain.
This is solved with key management and security as opposed to with the fact on whether or not the technology has merit. Now, we're really moving goalposts. ;)
It's more of using specialized, purpose driven applications vs using a generalized swiss army knife of epic proportions.
Handshake was purpose built to work with traditional DNS while ENS is something entirely different. I think that's why Handshake is gaining more adoption in the traditional DNS sector as well, but whatever the case, I've opted to work with this technology based on a number of factors:
1. The ENS project is great for creating human readable Ethereum wallets. However, it doesn't seem that it was initially suited to be used for DNS and that this was later patched on.
2. ENS is centrally controlled by a federation of key holders [1] while Handshake is decentralzed.
3. In Handshake, you truly own the name.
4. With blockchain already inheriting many inefficiencies when compared to more traditional systems, ethereum, while very cool, tries to be too much and the bloat has led to extreme fees for interacting with the blockchain.
That being said, I'm keeping my eye out on all of the naming projects. It's something I'm very interested in.
This isn't a marketing message/post.
This is a Hacker project to explore improved ways of doing things with the new primitives of our collective technology base. In this case, owning your own identity with a decentralized identity system.
I think marketing posts are better suited for another forum, no?
I apologize for that. There was an assumption that most people were aware of the Handshake Naming system [1]. Handshake is a naming blockchain that's recently been gaining adoption quickly (Namecheap [2]) (Opera Browser [3]). Using this, you can control your name, which is your identity, on the internet. There's a lot of other cool benefits, but as it pertains to this project, it's the names, cryptographic proof of ownership of said names, and the cryptographic provability that the messages were written by the owners of said name.
There are many ways to get Handshake names, but the easiest ways are to use Bob (non custodial) [4] or Namebase (custodial) [5].
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/handshake/comments/pt55vb/namecheap...
[3] https://twitter.com/opera/status/1476841607005622273
Between "there's no guarantee that the message viewed by a user was actually written by the poster" and "You absolutely cannot fake a message being cryptographically signed without providing a broken verification function" you moved the goalposts so hard it gave me whiplash and I'm afraid I can't continue this discussion due to my concussion.
I think it might be wise to review what signing means to understand that I didn't "move the goalposts" at all [1], but thanks for the discussion, as I merit it will help a lot of people to better understand the power of cryptography as I'm guessing it's a new field here as of yet.
Happy New Year!
If you think about it, this is also true for web3 — true enough that it's broken.
You absolutely cannot fake a message being cryptographically signed without providing a broken verification function.
We don't live in a world where you can't take things from people, etc.
The half glass empty approach is one method. The other method is to review the primitives we have in place today and explore different permutations that allow us to route around our adversities. That's the Hacker way. Of course, we do it with code.
Ultimately, society works because we don't really need ironclad guarantees like that.
The society you live in is very different from mine. Fraud and impersonation are real. [1]
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/23/13739026/reddit-ceo-stev...
This part can be addressed easily with avatars such as those Gravatar makes. Using a blockchain instead seems like a huge overkill, and also brings 'login' back into the equation because most websites will use something like Metamask, which you have to log into.
A gravatar is great for a profile photo, but in the end, there's no guarantee that the message viewed by a user was actually written by the poster. A site admin could simply inject posts as that user.
With signed messages, only those who possess the key could have created the signature for the signed message. Even a site admin cannot edit the message and get away with it (since the signature wouldn't validate).
I think where we're headed is a blend of Web 2 and Web 3 (Web 666). In this, Web 2 continues to live on in its current form, because it works quite well. However, there are some issues with Web 2 that Web 2 can't easily solve that are solved by Web 3. One of the biggest ones is decentralized identity which Handshake solves beautifully.
With signed strings tied to the keys associated with the handshake name, every action taken on a Web 2 website can now benefit from being verifiable [1]. You don't need the blockchain outside of the identity.
Secondly, the more I've been working with this technology, the more I've truly begun to understand how important it is to own one's name. There shouldn't be two afro88s. Imagine if there is an afro88 on reddit and this person starts acting a certain way -- and then someone comes here and they see your username and apply bias due to actions that were not your own?
Web 666 is a silly name for blending the "stacks" if you can call them that, together, but then again... [2]
[1] A reddit admin edited a user's comments. Imagine if that user was suddenly prosecuted on said "evidence?" What a shame, and cryptographic signatures really empower people on the internet, especially in a Web 2 world.
You hit the nail pretty much on the head. While you're correct that a 4chan-like mechanism would provide a means of authentication, the hash would not be human-recognizable easily (basically, not meaningful). Using a naming block chain like Handshake, you essentially solve Zooko's Trilemma [1].
This is an excellent question.
This is different from a website like Hacker News or Reddit which aim to be social media websites and avenues to engage in discourse.
Applause, instead, is as you might say, a tech demo, but also aims to, through UX and feature, create a different kind of environment than general social media networks. Instead, when a user engages in the act of 'signing' something, people can either agree in whole or not. If they agree in whole, they actually sign the original message itself. It's closer to a "shouting out to the void in a certified manner, and others can join in the shout" versus "shouting out to the void and debating."
I was browsing Handshake repos on github and noticed a pull request that added sign/verify [1] on the Bob Extension [2] on Github. This piqued my interested, and of course, it was time to hack away again. The result is applause [3] which lets you post and applaud (sign) your and other people's messages. This website does not require a login or signup because it uses the decentralized Handshake [4] blockchain.
It's open source on github [5] and mixes Web 2 and Web 3 together causing some interesting benefits.
It supports drag and drop among other things!
Hope you like it!
MIT LICENSED! Do whatever you want with it!
[1] https://github.com/kyokan/bob-extension/pull/15
Submission Statement: I was browsing Handshake repos on github and noticed a pull request that added sign/verify [1] on the Bob Extension [2] on Github. This piqued my interested, and of course, it was time to hack away again.
The result is applause [3] which lets you post and applaud (sign) your and other people's messages. This website does not require a login or signup because it uses the decentralized Handshake [4] blockchain.
It's open source on github [5] and mixes Web 2 and Web 3 together causing some interesting benefits.
Hope you like it!
[1] https://github.com/kyokan/bob-extension/pull/15
If it stops being seeded, then the content is worthless.