[kwlug-disc] Secure IM news

[locklin.jason at gmail.com]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 20:39:56 +0000
Chamunks <chamunks at gmail.com> wrote:

> Still sounds really nice but doesn't address the main issue that no one
> will want to install a battery drain.  Which is the reason they went with a
> push architecture.

Actually, both Chatsecure and Matrix/Riot run okay without push
infrastructure. If you install Riot from F-droid, it polls on pre-defined 
intervals, while the Google play version uses push. The chatsecure guys 
have also pioneered a lot of optimizations for making polling much easier on 
batteries. Obviously, push systems still work better.

In the end, that’s why I mention that p2p is a special case of federation. 
There are already people who run a XMPP or Matrix server for exactly one 
account on the local machine (and so are effectively operating p2p), 
while (most) others rely on shared servers.
Federation allows p2p where the hardware is adequate, while not forcing
it on those with fluid network connections and weak batteries. Hopefully,
those problems will be "solved" at some point in the future, and any
good federated system will be future-proofed for going fully p2p. 

> 
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 6:20 PM Jason Locklin <locklin.jason at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > The nice thing about a federated system is that p2p is just a special
> > case, and one can become the other when the hardware makes it realistic.
> > The chatsecure guys were talking about this a while back where they
> > suggested that every device could be its own xmpp server, perhaps using tor
> > for persistent routing and privacy.
> >
> > On November 26, 2016 3:54:07 PM EST, Chamunks <chamunks at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >A fully p2p system is the best system, but it would have to be based on
> > >something like DHTs so that offline messaging could work;
> > >
> > >This would be ideal except on mobile battery is at a premium so good
> > >luck
> > >telling people they need to contribute cycles to a dht
> > >
> > >On Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 1:24 PM Nick Guenther <nguenthe at uwaterloo.ca>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Le 26 novembre 2016 12:25:40 HNE, "B. S." <bs27975 at gmail.com> a écrit
> > >:
> > >> >> it would be ideal that we try and find a system that they can't
> > >have
> > >> >> one centralized location to squat in and collect our metadata.
> > >> >
> > >> >Does that not exist already in Tor?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Only if all the servers you use are .onion hidden services. If you go
> > >from
> > >> exit nodes to talk.google.com you made as little progress as using
> > >Tor to
> > >> access Facebook.
> > >> A fully p2p system is the best system, but it would have to be based
> > >on
> > >> something like DHTs so that offline messaging could work; this was
> > >tox's
> > >> idea, but I do not trust their code quality one bit; maybe they've
> > >gotten
> > >> better in the years since their founding.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> kwlug-disc mailing list
> > >> kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> > >> http://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >kwlug-disc mailing list
> > >kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> > >http://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
> >
> > --
> > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > kwlug-disc mailing list
> > kwlug-disc at kwlug.org
> > http://kwlug.org/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
> >


-- 
locklin.jason at gmail.com <locklin.jason at gmail.com>