identia VS orbitdb

This is not censorship resistant. Relays are external points of centralization. For all intents and purposes, they are federated service providers -- central services that can deplatform users by simply choosing not to syndicate their messages. Over time this will result in all relays being compromised by state adversaries. Legitimate "free speech" relays will be removed from the internet via ddos, legal complaints, and just general nuisance complaints that the SPLC and other organizations excel in. Both domain names, ARIN/RIPE/etc IP assignments, and BGP peering relationships are historically subject to revocation via a loud chorus of complainers when the speakers are politically unpersoned. Original nodes will then be replaced with adversarial ones -- sometimes on the same now-reassigned IPs or domain names that were taken from the original operators.

This could be reasonably censorship resistant if the first place people checked for the updates of users they follow was a hidden service that is innate to every client. Ricochet Refresh and Bisq are great models of this -- every messenger or trader client launches a local daemon accessible only by a hidden service that corresponds as its identity. Any kind of relay or pub system needs to be an offline-only gossip protocol that is only checked if the publisher's hidden service is inaccessible.

Secondly, this just does not scale, at all. The twitter firehouse is petabytes of content a day. If even a single city adopted this and used it like people do Twitter, running relays would be a financially and logistically significant enterprise. This is obviously nonviable. There are great ways for lowering the cost of UGC, namely serving it on some sort of DHT. You could use BitTorrent, or you could use IPFS. You are using neither, which means you haven't done basic napkin math on what being a Twitter alternative would mean.

But basically a real useful and actually decentralized and censorship resistant protocol would not be dependent on pubs or relays. If you want to contribute to something in development which actually has a viable model, I recommend Identia: https://github.com/iohzrd/identia

This proposed service has not confronted a single one of the actual problems of censorship or centralization in the subset of social media. You maybe should actually talk with people who have done significant anti-censorship work and ask them what the actual problems are and what needs to be done to solve them.

OrbitDB is not well-funded, but there's fresh work happening recently by some dedicated volunteers: https://github.com/orbitdb/orbitdb/commits/main

I've been thinking it might be practical to build a simple decentralized database, where agents just know each other, so conflict resolution does not need to be so strong and can rely on the social layer.

I think this applies to most databases, but I'm particularly thinking of internal enterprise databases, some social networks, any federated database system, and different devices of a single user

I'm thinking of this features:

1- Append-only?, full history of operations. Deletes / edits do not remove data, they only modify the "active state"

2- Agents are public keys or similar (DIDs?)

3- Operations are signed, and receivers verify if operation is valid, and sender is allowed

4- Operations form a Merkel-DAG (similar to git, they link to the tips of current "active state", like a commit/merge in git)

So far I think I've basically described [OrbitDB](https://github.com/orbitdb/orbit-db)

Consensus is where things get real hard, [OrbitDb seems to use a last-write-wins CRDT](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22920204), and although I don't know the details of orbitDb, I think for many simple use-cases, conflicts can just be resolved on the social layer. But I think we need to provide agents with good tools to resolve conflicts

I'll try my best here with some ideas:

- When merging, we can order operations by their timestamp, if operations enter conflict, raise it to the conflicting agents, or someone with permission to solve them.

If an agent makes public an operation that forks its own history, mark agent as malicious or compromised, alert other agents, this needs resolution on the social layer, you have proof of misconduct, an agent has signed diverging operations

Any operation becomes fully settled if you have proof that all agents of your system have referenced it directly or indirectly through newer operations.

Timestamps can be upgraded by using @opentimestamps to get proof that an operation existed at time X (prevents creation of operations in hindsight). Though this does not prove operation has been made public

Both use OrbitDB: Peer-to-Peer Databases for the Decentralized Web. JavaScript. MIT license. repo

I think a wallet-agnostic memo solution is definitely the way. Having wallets that end up (partly) incompatible is only gonna hurt the UX. Maybe a decentralised DB solution like OrbitDB or GunDB can be the best way forward, although I haven't dove deeply into the docs yet.

Checkout this https://github.com/orbitdb/orbit-db peer-to-peer database for the decentralized Web.