Attached: 4 images
It's really unfortunate to see that @simplex@mastodon.social went the Tokenization/NFTs route to fund the project, and also chose Ethereum (which was 70% pre-mined by it's developers), inventing your own coin doesn't suddenly give it value (no matter what restrictions you place on it) not trusting the operators means you don't want to let go of control, you want a Token that only YOU can control, I'm not saying it's easy.. And I'm not saying I have the solution, but this ain't it.
#privacy #crypocurrency #ethereum #NFTs #tech #tokenization #blockchain #encyption #messaging #technology
It’s really sad to see SimpleX goes the shitcoin route to try and fund their project, Ethereum is not ethical as I briefly explained in this post
Now is a perfect opportunity to fork the project with I2P and add Monero as the payment option both for people to transact and fund the developers and I2P operators
Forking isnt a solution, unless you are committed to patching all future security vulnerabilities and adding feature updates on you own. Cryptography is complicated, designing a secure messenger is very complicated. Forking isnt a magic bullet.
With soft forks you still need to merge upstream changes and figure out what to do when they’re incompatible with your changes, do your own testing of your fork once you’ve merged the changes, etc.
The interesting thing about simplex is that (IIRC) the chat protocol is unencrypted and sits atop an encrypted transport protocol call SMP.
That is to say the encryption is divorced from the rest of the stack, and a lot of the hardwork of making it is done.
Of course its going to need lots of maintenance, but the open source community has proven itself capable of maintaining secure implementations of encryption alogrythms.
This is especially true if we continue to take upstream upgrades from SimpleX and strip the crypto VC bullshit out of the codebase.
i thought simplex was completely decentralized p2p. can’t it simply be forked?
Forking isnt a solution, unless you are committed to patching all future security vulnerabilities and adding feature updates on you own. Cryptography is complicated, designing a secure messenger is very complicated. Forking isnt a magic bullet.
you are speaking about hard forking. soft forking is an option
With soft forks you still need to merge upstream changes and figure out what to do when they’re incompatible with your changes, do your own testing of your fork once you’ve merged the changes, etc.
that’s right, but it’s still less work
You said forking twice
if I count the words, that’s true, but the 2 fork strategies have meaningful difference
No, but good projects have come from forking away from bad decisions.
The interesting thing about simplex is that (IIRC) the chat protocol is unencrypted and sits atop an encrypted transport protocol call SMP.
That is to say the encryption is divorced from the rest of the stack, and a lot of the hardwork of making it is done.
Of course its going to need lots of maintenance, but the open source community has proven itself capable of maintaining secure implementations of encryption alogrythms.
This is especially true if we continue to take upstream upgrades from SimpleX and strip the crypto VC bullshit out of the codebase.
It’s not p2p but it is decentralized. It can be forked. Who will do it?