librelist archives

« back to archive

FireChat in Economist

FireChat in Economist

From:
Francis Irving
Date:
2014-06-02 @ 08:04
FireChat, an iPhone app that does mesh network messaging, had an
article in the Economist this month (can't find it to link to,
and paywalled anyway).

It seems to be one app of a thing called OpenGarden, which is a
meshnetwork thingy for iPhones:

http://opengarden.com/faq#faq-general-001

The Economist article was pretty good at explaining it to the general
reader, and why mesh networks might help with resilience, and gives
the shorter term application of use in football stadiums et al.

Francis

Re: [redecentralize] FireChat in Economist

From:
Steve Phillips
Date:
2014-06-02 @ 09:10
OpenGarden sounds awesome, but it's closed source :-(.  The founders aren't
worried about that though, it seems:
https://twitter.com/elimisteve/status/473086170725756928

--Steve


On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Francis Irving <francis@flourish.org> wrote:

> FireChat, an iPhone app that does mesh network messaging, had an
> article in the Economist this month (can't find it to link to,
> and paywalled anyway).
>
> It seems to be one app of a thing called OpenGarden, which is a
> meshnetwork thingy for iPhones:
>
> http://opengarden.com/faq#faq-general-001
>
> The Economist article was pretty good at explaining it to the general
> reader, and why mesh networks might help with resilience, and gives
> the shorter term application of use in football stadiums et al.
>
> Francis
>

Re: [redecentralize] FireChat in Economist

From:
Stephan Tual
Date:
2014-06-02 @ 09:33
Agreed - closed source really sucks.



Stephan Tual
Chief Communications Officer
--
sk. stephan.tual
tw. @stephantual




On Monday, 2 June 2014 at 10:10, Steve Phillips wrote:

> OpenGarden sounds awesome, but it's closed source :-(.  The founders 
aren't worried about that though, it seems: 
https://twitter.com/elimisteve/status/473086170725756928
> 
> --Steve
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Francis Irving <francis@flourish.org 
(mailto:francis@flourish.org)> wrote:
> > FireChat, an iPhone app that does mesh network messaging, had an
> > article in the Economist this month (can't find it to link to,
> > and paywalled anyway).
> > 
> > It seems to be one app of a thing called OpenGarden, which is a
> > meshnetwork thingy for iPhones:
> > 
> > http://opengarden.com/faq#faq-general-001
> > 
> > The Economist article was pretty good at explaining it to the general
> > reader, and why mesh networks might help with resilience, and gives
> > the shorter term application of use in football stadiums et al.
> > 
> > Francis
> 

Re: [redecentralize] FireChat in Economist

From:
Eric Mill
Date:
2014-06-02 @ 15:34
I'd go so far as to say being closed source completely rules it out from
being part of the decentralized web.

Certainly, open source software that is hosted on a server can still be
silently backdoored in some ways -- you can't generally verify that the
server is running the same code that's in public source control.

But all the intentions, architecture, security, community engagement, good
faith participation, etc. of the project are all obscured by closing the
source. They exist apart.


On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Stephan Tual <stephan.tual@ethereum.org>
wrote:

> Agreed - closed source really sucks.
>
>
>
> *Stephan Tual*
> Chief Communications Officer
> --
> sk. stephan.tual
> tw. @stephantual
>
> On Monday, 2 June 2014 at 10:10, Steve Phillips wrote:
>
> OpenGarden sounds awesome, but it's closed source :-(.  The founders
> aren't worried about that though, it seems:
> https://twitter.com/elimisteve/status/473086170725756928
>
> --Steve
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Francis Irving <francis@flourish.org>
> wrote:
>
> FireChat, an iPhone app that does mesh network messaging, had an
> article in the Economist this month (can't find it to link to,
> and paywalled anyway).
>
> It seems to be one app of a thing called OpenGarden, which is a
> meshnetwork thingy for iPhones:
>
> http://opengarden.com/faq#faq-general-001
>
> The Economist article was pretty good at explaining it to the general
> reader, and why mesh networks might help with resilience, and gives
> the shorter term application of use in football stadiums et al.
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>


-- 
konklone.com | @konklone <https://twitter.com/konklone>

Re: [redecentralize] FireChat in Economist

From:
Jörg F. Wittenberger
Date:
2014-06-03 @ 06:29
Am 02.06.2014 17:34, schrieb Eric Mill:
> I'd go so far as to say being closed source completely rules it out 
> from being part of the decentralized web.

Agreed.

>
> Certainly, open source software that is hosted on a server can still 
> be silently backdoored in some ways -- you can't generally verify that 
> the server is running the same code that's in public source control.

This BTW is only correct as far as it pertains to the secrecy of the 
information handled by the software.  Though even unmodified code would 
often leave data accessible to administrators anyways.

To assess correctness of execution there is a proven way: one can always 
run the software at multiple server (or rather peers in that case) at 
the same time and have them audit each other.

(I.e. each peer would almost act as if it was the server, but check with 
the net whether the result is acceptable according the the underlying 
"smart contract". The check could be done via Bitcoin-alike block chains 
or using byzantine agreement.  Maybe other options I'm not aware of.)

So far I only know of askemos.org doing so in practice (to the extend 
that the website itself is hosted that way).  Though at least Ethereum 
works towards the same goal. (With Askemos taking the per-contract 
byzantine agreement route and Ethereum using the global blockchain 
approach.)

Best

/Jörg

>
> But all the intentions, architecture, security, community engagement, 
> good faith participation, etc. of the project are all obscured by 
> closing the source. They exist apart.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Stephan Tual 
> <stephan.tual@ethereum.org <mailto:stephan.tual@ethereum.org>> wrote:
>
>     Agreed - closed source really sucks.
>
>
>
>     *Stephan Tual*
>     Chief Communications Officer
>     --
>     sk. stephan.tual
>     tw. @stephantual
>
>     On Monday, 2 June 2014 at 10:10, Steve Phillips wrote:
>
>>     OpenGarden sounds awesome, but it's closed source :-(.  The
>>     founders aren't worried about that though, it seems:
>>     https://twitter.com/elimisteve/status/473086170725756928
>>
>>     --Steve
>>
>>
>>     On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Francis Irving
>>     <francis@flourish.org <mailto:francis@flourish.org>> wrote:
>>>     FireChat, an iPhone app that does mesh network messaging, had an
>>>     article in the Economist this month (can't find it to link to,
>>>     and paywalled anyway).
>>>
>>>     It seems to be one app of a thing called OpenGarden, which is a
>>>     meshnetwork thingy for iPhones:
>>>
>>>     http://opengarden.com/faq#faq-general-001
>>>
>>>     The Economist article was pretty good at explaining it to the
>>>     general
>>>     reader, and why mesh networks might help with resilience, and gives
>>>     the shorter term application of use in football stadiums et al.
>>>
>>>     Francis
>>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> konklone.com <https://konklone.com> | @konklone 
> <https://twitter.com/konklone>

Re: [redecentralize] FireChat in Economist

From:
Eric Mill
Date:
2014-06-03 @ 14:35
I'm not sure how verifying the output of a server also verifies that the
code running on a server is unmodified? Or am I misunderstanding?


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Jörg F. Wittenberger <
Joerg.Wittenberger@softeyes.net> wrote:

>  Am 02.06.2014 17:34, schrieb Eric Mill:
>
> I'd go so far as to say being closed source completely rules it out from
> being part of the decentralized web.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>
>  Certainly, open source software that is hosted on a server can still be
> silently backdoored in some ways -- you can't generally verify that the
> server is running the same code that's in public source control.
>
>
> This BTW is only correct as far as it pertains to the secrecy of the
> information handled by the software.  Though even unmodified code would
> often leave data accessible to administrators anyways.
>
> To assess correctness of execution there is a proven way: one can always
> run the software at multiple server (or rather peers in that case) at the
> same time and have them audit each other.
>
> (I.e. each peer would almost act as if it was the server, but check with
> the net whether the result is acceptable according the the underlying
> "smart contract". The check could be done via Bitcoin-alike block chains or
> using byzantine agreement.  Maybe other options I'm not aware of.)
>
> So far I only know of askemos.org doing so in practice (to the extend
> that the website itself is hosted that way).  Though at least Ethereum
> works towards the same goal. (With Askemos taking the per-contract
> byzantine agreement route and Ethereum using the global blockchain
> approach.)
>
> Best
>
> /Jörg
>
>
>
>  But all the intentions, architecture, security, community engagement,
> good faith participation, etc. of the project are all obscured by closing
> the source. They exist apart.
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Stephan Tual <stephan.tual@ethereum.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Agreed - closed source really sucks.
>>
>>
>>
>>  *Stephan Tual*
>> Chief Communications Officer
>> --
>> sk. stephan.tual
>> tw. @stephantual
>>
>> On Monday, 2 June 2014 at 10:10, Steve Phillips wrote:
>>
>>   OpenGarden sounds awesome, but it's closed source :-(.  The founders
>> aren't worried about that though, it seems:
>> https://twitter.com/elimisteve/status/473086170725756928
>>
>>  --Steve
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Francis Irving <francis@flourish.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> FireChat, an iPhone app that does mesh network messaging, had an
>> article in the Economist this month (can't find it to link to,
>> and paywalled anyway).
>>
>> It seems to be one app of a thing called OpenGarden, which is a
>> meshnetwork thingy for iPhones:
>>
>> http://opengarden.com/faq#faq-general-001
>>
>> The Economist article was pretty good at explaining it to the general
>> reader, and why mesh networks might help with resilience, and gives
>> the shorter term application of use in football stadiums et al.
>>
>> Francis
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
>  konklone.com | @konklone <https://twitter.com/konklone>
>
>
>


-- 
konklone.com | @konklone <https://twitter.com/konklone>

Re: [redecentralize] FireChat in Economist

From:
Paul Frazee
Date:
2014-06-03 @ 15:17
Multiple-server verification is a guard against untrusted peers, not closed
source.


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Eric Mill <eric@konklone.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure how verifying the output of a server also verifies that the
> code running on a server is unmodified? Or am I misunderstanding?
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Jörg F. Wittenberger <
> Joerg.Wittenberger@softeyes.net> wrote:
>
>>  Am 02.06.2014 17:34, schrieb Eric Mill:
>>
>> I'd go so far as to say being closed source completely rules it out from
>> being part of the decentralized web.
>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Certainly, open source software that is hosted on a server can still be
>> silently backdoored in some ways -- you can't generally verify that the
>> server is running the same code that's in public source control.
>>
>>
>> This BTW is only correct as far as it pertains to the secrecy of the
>> information handled by the software.  Though even unmodified code would
>> often leave data accessible to administrators anyways.
>>
>> To assess correctness of execution there is a proven way: one can always
>> run the software at multiple server (or rather peers in that case) at the
>> same time and have them audit each other.
>>
>> (I.e. each peer would almost act as if it was the server, but check with
>> the net whether the result is acceptable according the the underlying
>> "smart contract". The check could be done via Bitcoin-alike block chains or
>> using byzantine agreement.  Maybe other options I'm not aware of.)
>>
>> So far I only know of askemos.org doing so in practice (to the extend
>> that the website itself is hosted that way).  Though at least Ethereum
>> works towards the same goal. (With Askemos taking the per-contract
>> byzantine agreement route and Ethereum using the global blockchain
>> approach.)
>>
>> Best
>>
>> /Jörg
>>
>>
>>
>>  But all the intentions, architecture, security, community engagement,
>> good faith participation, etc. of the project are all obscured by closing
>> the source. They exist apart.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Stephan Tual <stephan.tual@ethereum.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed - closed source really sucks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  *Stephan Tual*
>>> Chief Communications Officer
>>> --
>>> sk. stephan.tual
>>> tw. @stephantual
>>>
>>> On Monday, 2 June 2014 at 10:10, Steve Phillips wrote:
>>>
>>>   OpenGarden sounds awesome, but it's closed source :-(.  The founders
>>> aren't worried about that though, it seems:
>>> https://twitter.com/elimisteve/status/473086170725756928
>>>
>>>  --Steve
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Francis Irving <francis@flourish.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> FireChat, an iPhone app that does mesh network messaging, had an
>>> article in the Economist this month (can't find it to link to,
>>> and paywalled anyway).
>>>
>>> It seems to be one app of a thing called OpenGarden, which is a
>>> meshnetwork thingy for iPhones:
>>>
>>> http://opengarden.com/faq#faq-general-001
>>>
>>> The Economist article was pretty good at explaining it to the general
>>> reader, and why mesh networks might help with resilience, and gives
>>> the shorter term application of use in football stadiums et al.
>>>
>>> Francis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>>  konklone.com | @konklone <https://twitter.com/konklone>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> konklone.com | @konklone <https://twitter.com/konklone>
>

Re: [redecentralize] FireChat in Economist

From:
Jörg F. Wittenberger
Date:
2014-06-04 @ 08:32
Am 03.06.2014 17:17, schrieb Paul Frazee:
> Multiple-server verification is a guard against untrusted peers, not 
> closed source.

That's the point.  People might not share their opinion regarding open 
source.  Still they might want at least some trust among each other.

>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Eric Mill <eric@konklone.com 
> <mailto:eric@konklone.com>> wrote:
>
>     I'm not sure how verifying the output of a server also verifies
>     that the code running on a server is unmodified? Or am I
>     misunderstanding?
>

Which code exactly, two cases here:

a) The whole code stack doing all the i/o, libraries, OS kernel, the 
server itself?
      It doesn't verify the this code is unmodified.  Why should it? How 
would one ever update?

b) The dynamically code loaded MAY be (usually is) the output of the 
network itself.
      So it's actually verified against the hash from the source control 
system.

But both cases, verified or not, it does not matter so much to verify 
the code. Because suspicious code must produce the same output as the 
copy you trust. This reduces possible damage quite a bit.

Doesn't help much with keeping data secret when attackers already own a 
peer.  Still at least no website defacement, no attacker sending 
messages in your name.

>
>
>     On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Jörg F. Wittenberger
>     <Joerg.Wittenberger@softeyes.net
>     <mailto:Joerg.Wittenberger@softeyes.net>> wrote:
>
>         Am 02.06.2014 17:34, schrieb Eric Mill:
>>         I'd go so far as to say being closed source completely rules
>>         it out from being part of the decentralized web.
>
>         Agreed.
>
>
>>
>>         Certainly, open source software that is hosted on a server
>>         can still be silently backdoored in some ways -- you can't
>>         generally verify that the server is running the same code
>>         that's in public source control.
>
>         This BTW is only correct as far as it pertains to the secrecy
>         of the information handled by the software.  Though even
>         unmodified code would often leave data accessible to
>         administrators anyways.
>
>         To assess correctness of execution there is a proven way: one
>         can always run the software at multiple server (or rather
>         peers in that case) at the same time and have them audit each
>         other.
>
>         (I.e. each peer would almost act as if it was the server, but
>         check with the net whether the result is acceptable according
>         the the underlying "smart contract". The check could be done
>         via Bitcoin-alike block chains or using byzantine agreement. 
>         Maybe other options I'm not aware of.)
>
>         So far I only know of askemos.org <http://askemos.org> doing
>         so in practice (to the extend that the website itself is
>         hosted that way).  Though at least Ethereum works towards the
>         same goal. (With Askemos taking the per-contract byzantine
>         agreement route and Ethereum using the global blockchain
>         approach.)
>
>         Best
>
>         /Jörg
>
>
>>
>>         But all the intentions, architecture, security, community
>>         engagement, good faith participation, etc. of the project are
>>         all obscured by closing the source. They exist apart.
>>
>>
>>         On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Stephan Tual
>>         <stephan.tual@ethereum.org
>>         <mailto:stephan.tual@ethereum.org>> wrote:
>>
>>             Agreed - closed source really sucks.
>>
>>
>>
>>             *Stephan Tual*
>>             Chief Communications Officer
>>             --
>>             sk. stephan.tual
>>             tw. @stephantual
>>
>>             On Monday, 2 June 2014 at 10:10, Steve Phillips wrote:
>>
>>>             OpenGarden sounds awesome, but it's closed source :-(.
>>>              The founders aren't worried about that though, it
>>>             seems:
>>>             https://twitter.com/elimisteve/status/473086170725756928
>>>
>>>             --Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>             On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Francis Irving
>>>             <francis@flourish.org <mailto:francis@flourish.org>> wrote:
>>>>             FireChat, an iPhone app that does mesh network
>>>>             messaging, had an
>>>>             article in the Economist this month (can't find it to
>>>>             link to,
>>>>             and paywalled anyway).
>>>>
>>>>             It seems to be one app of a thing called OpenGarden,
>>>>             which is a
>>>>             meshnetwork thingy for iPhones:
>>>>
>>>>             http://opengarden.com/faq#faq-general-001
>>>>
>>>>             The Economist article was pretty good at explaining it
>>>>             to the general
>>>>             reader, and why mesh networks might help with
>>>>             resilience, and gives
>>>>             the shorter term application of use in football
>>>>             stadiums et al.
>>>>
>>>>             Francis
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         -- 
>>         konklone.com <https://konklone.com> | @konklone
>>         <https://twitter.com/konklone>
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     konklone.com <https://konklone.com> | @konklone
>     <https://twitter.com/konklone>
>
>