I tried engaging with them once but was not able to get a clear answer on how exactly is it better than what Tor does, privacy wise, nor why exactly blockchain was necessary for creating a peer-to-peer IM and audio/video calls system (something that Tox was able to do without blockchain half a decade ago).
Smells fishy to me, tbh.
Kinda hard to run a foundation -without- money.
Why is it that whenever money is involved people freak out? You can’t pay bills on ideals.
It’s already better than what Tor does in execution. At least in the US, a lot of Tor nodes may turn out to be honeypots. This rumor is four years old and it’s been rumored among communities much longer than that.
@wholesomedonut @email@example.com @session oh I don't freak out "whenever money is involved". In fact, I have given multiple talks arguing that "free as in freedom" is not "free as in beer" and FLOSS projects and activists need to be financially supported for the movement to be sustainable.
But thanks for making a nice straw man there!
Instead, since I do not see the utility of blockchain in this situation *other than* making sure a specific foundation gets money, I question the motivation of the project.
@wholesomedonut @firstname.lastname@example.org @session if the project is built such that whatever happens, this particular wallet/entity/whatever gets regular token payments, what happens in case of a fork? Does the whole blockchain need to be forked? If so, that's a huge barrier of entry, using the Network Effect to ensure a money flow to a particular foundation as long ast the project is used by anyone.
Essentially, a new type of a walled garden. Yay!
@wholesomedonut @email@example.com what happens if, say, @session becomes as popular as Tor, with thousands of activists and journalists relying on it in dangerous places, and then for whatever reason the foundation gets overtaken by <insert your worst nightmare here>?
With Tor, you can have independent *interoperable* implementations. With Session, as far as I understand, as long as you're using the same blockchain, the same entity gets the regular token payment.
Do you think NSA would share their Tor honeypots with KGB, and they with Chinese equivalent? Pretty sure they all want them, and they all need 50%+ of them.
It does let the foundation benefit financially when your favourite three-letter-agency starts setting a crap-ton of honeypot nodes. I find that a problematic proposition, one that seems to set the incentives in a very weird way.
@wholesomedonut @firstname.lastname@example.org @session so unless I see some clear hard data and a good paper on why blockchain is *necessary* in what Session is doing, I consider it another blockchain-based pyramid scheme, which happens to mask as an IM and audio-video calls system, and one that happens to create a pretty insidious walled garden for its users.
Happy to change my mind if data/paper is provided!
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!