Re: [Social-discuss] P2P or server approach?

[Ted Smith]

On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 16:39 -0400, Henry Litwhiler wrote:
> On 3/24/10 1:06 PM, Sylvan Heuser wrote: 
> > As I see it, we have two approaches between we must decide.
> > 
> > 
> > The pure P2P approach:
> > Pro:
> > - Everyone has true full control over their data
> > - No logs on any server that could be used against you
> > Con:
> > - Apart from caching (which would generate new problems), when the
> > machine or connection (This also applies for SheevaPlugs) of a user is
> > down, the profile of this user will also be inaccessible.
> > 
> >   
> I feel like there are a number of ways around this con. For instance,
> certain portions of user data could be backed up on the servers of
> their friends, so that it could be retrieved in the event of some sort
> of system failure, and so that the user's profile is still available,
> despite any connection difficulties. Of course, this approach could
> present a number of privacy and data control problems. It's just one
> of many solutions, at any rate.

If GNU Social was implemented on top of GNUnet[1], we could get
anonymous/encrypted p2p storage with active migration, such that if a
user requested data it would be cached on their node. If "their node" is
actually a high-end server/supernode that is serving multiple clients,
even better - GNUnet scales up and supports postgres and MySQL as
backends.

Also, this would mean that GNU Social would be anonymous and
censorship-proof.

This doesn't seem likely, but it's a cool idea.

[1] https://gnunet.org

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part