My problem with services like , etc: no simple one click “move my content from one to another server” option. Some servers are slow, become unmaintained, don’t update. Roving profiles should be default and part of the standard.

Follow

‪I also don’t want to be forced to register everywhere to avoid username squatting. When I’m jwildeboer on one federated server, I should be jwildeboer in the whole network. Again. What we really need is a universal, decentralised identity solution which I call TCP/ID. ‬

@jwildeboer Do you also feel that way about email? That anyone's nick should be reserved across all email servers? (Just curious, not picking a fight or anything)

@murph no. Backwards compatibility has its limits. Email was domain based from the beginning. With lots of universal, per domain identifiers like postmaster@, abuse@ etc.

@adolfhonkler there are many jwildeboer. The username is not the unique identifier. It’s an attribute.

@adolfhonkler can I haz the 300 version? Leonidas was a version name after all :)

@jwildeboer OF COURSE, ALWAYS HAPPY TO HELP IN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST HYPER CAPITALISM

@adolfhonkler I so had to save this and share it with my towarischtschts. Thank you, comrade!

@jwildeboer There are solutions, but they all run straight into Zooko's Triangle. The most reasonable compromise is probably going to be cryptographic identities and pet names rather than a decentralized centralized registry where jwildeboer is a unique identifier.

@clacke jwildeboer is just an attribute, not the unique identifier in my view.

@clacke but it’s quite easy to calculate the proximity of my jwildeboer to you compared to jwildeboer that some other Jan, Jen, julius, Justin Wildeboer might use out there.

@jwildeboer - well, there are at least two different issues here: 1) identity solution and 2) outdated server installations.

For 2) I filed github.com/tootsuite/mastodon/

@jwildeboer so the solution to the problem of identity decentralisation is... recentralisation?
I'm sure there are already ID solutions available but not sure integration of these yet widespread. Be nice to be able to auth to new service with your own ID rather than some myserverona.xyz site...

@acesabe ‪In there’s still the centralised core principle that USERNAME@DOMAIN is the identifier. Which means that DOMAIN “owns” the identity. And that is the core problem. Truly decentralised means that DOMAIN is not needed. ‬

@acesabe it also means that USERNAME is not really acceptable as global identifier. USERNAME is an attribute of the core identity IMHO. And not unique.

@acesabe so the real question becomes what is a good global unique identifier? One that is owned by the person, not a centralised registry? That’s what I’m thinking about since 10+ years.

@jwildeboer agreed, in fact this whole DNS system is not inclusive (free domain names aren't really a solution) so we really need something that can act as a personal UUID which can be used to auth across the fediverse and beyond!
And I have not yet said Blockchain! (Ok, maybe involving Blockchain!)

@acesabe how decentralised are blockchains? ;) Hint: not a lot. But blockchain is interesting from the perspective of immutability. Unfortunately most blockchains fail that test. Ethereum, anyone?

@acesabe DNS is Interesting as it tries to square the circle. TCP/IP is inherently anarchistic and self-organising by design. But DNS and RIPE try to make it authoritarian again.

@jwildeboer another route could be biometrics, most of the sort of people who might want a GUID for online auth will have some device that could tie personal identification (finger print or face) with digital ID. Keeping this info out of the hands of the surveillance capitalists (or other disreputable types) is the problem...

@acesabe I can give you 100 more problems to think about. And I invite you to help solve them.

@jwildeboer Bring it! I'll happily share my solution ideas, just don't ask me to code or implement them!

@acesabe @jwildeboer Blockchain is only useful if you want the human-readable identity to be a unique resource. Without that, you can skip concensus.

@clacke the BC ref was only jokingly included as method to entice VC backers (probably all burnt by now however!) For purposes of generating a personal GUID BC seems irrelevant, unless anyone has some way it could add value to such endeavour?

@jwildeboer I both agree and disagree. I understand it's troublesome but if you look for jan wildeboer online, eg in LinkedIn, you will see that there are many jans, why should you be the true one and only? (note that I can't avoid feeling that you somehow deserve it)

@RuiSeabra it depends on our proximity. There are many {Jan, Jen, Justin, …} Wildeboer out there. A username is not the unique identifier I’m looking at.

@jwildeboer but your problem is already solved, it's just that it's not only @jwildeboer but in fact it's @jwildeboer :)

@jwildeboer no easy way to move data from one server to another is... an issue.

@jwildeboer "I also don’t want to be forced to register everywhere to avoid username squatting."
I think that makes no sense. You would also not expect to own jwildeboer@ on all domains to receive emails, would you? If your audience does not understand that jwildeboer@domain1 is different from jwildeboer@domain2, then educate them.

@globalc I’ve explained my answer to that at least two times in this very thread. How am I supposed to educate my audience when they don’t even read my answers?

@jwildeboer I did read the thread, and still do not see the point. Just consider user@domain as the ID, and not just "user". Not seeing why someone would ask to own user@ on all domains. It's like asking to own the site delivered when asking for subdomain "www" below all existing higher level domains. *shrug*

@globalc it’s the difference between federated (domains “own” users) and decentralised (users own themselves). That’s the whole point I was making.

@globalc and I explained several times that USERNAME cannot be globally unique. But it can very well be a distinguishing attribute in a global, decentralised identity system.

@jwildeboer Well, depends on what one expects. For me, the fediverse adressing of users including the domain works ok.
I see your point about automatic replication of content among multiple domains, so moving over is simpler. Would just mean more storage being used by default.

@globalc I didn’t ask for replication (although that’s also a nice to have). I asked for simple and complete migration from one server to another. After that has happened, there’s no need for the “old” server to keep “my” data. It can be deleted. So no extra storage needed/wasted.

@globalc meaning there can be several people using the same USERNAME as attribute of their unique global identity. That combination allows others to find the “right” one based on identity proximity of these attributes. But there’s no domain that “owns” their users as it is in federated and centralised systems.

@jwildeboer @globalc Maybe it's because you contradicted yourself. You clarified that the human-redable signifier wouldn't be unique, but then squatting makes no sense and domains are redundant.

@clacke @globalc no contradiction. The username wouldn’t be unique *in my system* which doesn’t (yet) exist. But right now, in the domain based systems everywhere it IS a problem.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
social.wildeboer.net

Mastodon instance for people with Wildeboer as their last name