Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

bluesky AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Global-Scale Distributed Storage Systems

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Justin Chapweske <orasis AT acm.cs.umn.edu>
  • To: Global-Scale Distributed Storage Systems <bluesky AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] Re: [decentralization] The Content-Addressable Web
  • Date: 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 AT acm.cs.umn.edu
> For list information visit http://www.transarc.ibm.com/~ota/bluesky/

--
Justin Chapweske




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page