What do we mean by "the fediverse should move to a more p2p design"? Wikipedia explains:
> Peer-to-peer (P2P) computing or networking is a distributed application architecture that partitions tasks or workloads between peers. Peers are equally privileged, equipotent participants in the application. They are said to form a peer-to-peer network of nodes.
> Peers make a portion of their resources, such as processing power, disk storage or network bandwidth, directly available to other network participants, without the need for central coordination by servers or stable hosts. Peers are both suppliers and consumers of resources, in contrast to the traditional client-server model in which the consumption and supply of resources is divided.
Surely that sounds like the kind of thing the fediverse likes; how to get there?
An early writeup along these lines was a paper I did for Rebooting Web of Trust: https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot5-boston/blob/master/final-documents/activitypub-decentralized-distributed.md
My thinking has changed a bit since then but the core ideas are largely the same. But we need ways to be able to share content in a p2p manner while preserving privacy; how to do that? That's what #Spritely is currently exploring w/ Magenc, Golem, Crystal
I think that the ideal scenario to make common people use a P2P social network is to let them host a node at home just installing an Android app on their old phone, that would act also as a server for their user devices like PC, smartphones and tablets
@alexl that's a good idea, thanks. Was just thinking I need to get off Dropbox.
So... like making some kind of I2P but for the fediverse?
@rick_777 Or, why not layer the fediverse on top of I2P (or Tor onion services)?
I'm not totally sure about that... I think requiring I2P would remove legitimacy from the fediverse, and would make it a target for government censorship (the old "you have nothing to hide" excuse).
But allowing nodes to form part of the network and putting forums on them is like an online utopia for me. It would mean separating the roles of administrators from moderators and forum owners.
Naturally this would require some kind of PKI infrastructure.
What if forum owners become some kind of certificate authorities? A ban would mean certificate revocation, and if we only accept valid certs then we would solve the abuse problem.
Rogue instances? Block the instance owner cert, and its users are muted ipso facto.
Now privacy and followers gets interesting (complicated)... should we issue temporary keys for followers with an expiration date?
There's tons of things to think about, but I don't think it'd be impossible to pull off. But it will require lots of careful planning.