[p2p-hackers] Re: [decentralization] The Content-Addressable Web

Justin Chapweske orasis@acm.cs.umn.edu
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:46:02 -0500


I think it would be best if follow-up conversation was held on 
decentralization.

On Thu, Oct 25, 2001 at 01:41:51PM -0700, Zooko wrote:
> 
>   [Everyone please note that this thread is being crossposted to p2p-hackers,
>    decentralization and bluesky.  Only subscribers can post directly to
>    p2p-hackers, but messages from non-subscribers get forwarded to me for
>    approval.  --Zooko http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers/ ] 
> 
> Lines prepended with "> > > " were written by Justin Chapweske.
> Lines prepended with "> > " were written by Mark Baker.
> 
> > > > While any kind of URN can be used within the Content-Addressable
> > > > Web, there is a specific type of URN called a "Self-Verifying
> > > > URN" that is particularly useful. These URNs have the
> > > > property that the URN itself can be used to verify that
> > > > the content has been received intact. It is RECOMMENDED
> > > > that applications use cryptographically strong self-verifying
> > > > URNs because hosts in ad hoc CDNs and the Transient Web
> > > > are assumed to be untrusted. For instance, one could hash
> > > > the content using the SHA-1 algorithm, and encode it using
> > > > Base32 to produce the following URN:
> > > > 
> > > > urn:sha1:RMUVHIRSGUU3VU7FJWRAKW3YWG2S2RFB
> > > 
> > > That's an invalid URN, AFAIK.  There's no authority.  All URIs
> > > need an authority to vouch for the identity.
> 
> This is surely the most pernicious myth about naming: that it is impossible to
> verify the correctness of a mapping yourself and you are doomed to trust in
> some external authority who will tell you the answer.
> 
> There are two counterexamples: names that are a deterministic function of the
> content (which Freenet calls "Content Hash Keys" or "CHKs") and names that
> include the ID of a public key in the name, so that you can check a digital
> signature on the content (which Freenet calls "Sub-Space Keys" or "SSKs", and
> the Self-Certifying File System[1] calls "names").
> 
> 
> I think this is an extremely important point.  IMO the only part of "p2p" which
> is really revolutionary is the potential for "cooperation without
> vulnerability" -- two agents live on opposite sides of an unbridgeable trust
> boundary who are still able to interoperate and cooperate.
> 
> I'm going to say it again:
> 
> The most important concept in the whole field of the "p2p" or
> "decentralization" or whatever you call it is the concept of "cooperation
> without vulnerability".
> 
> The most important component of infrastructure that we lack right now in order
> to enable cooperation without vulnerability is a name service which uses
> self-authenticating keys so that no agent is ever vulnerable to deception with
> regard to what object a name should map to.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Zooko
> 
> http://zooko.com/
> 
> [1] http://fs.net/
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to bluesky as: orasis@acm.cs.umn.edu
> For list information visit http://www.transarc.ibm.com/~ota/bluesky/

-- 
Justin Chapweske