-
dwebchat
Decentralized, end to end encrypted peer to peer chat where everyone is a client and a server. No central servers required.
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
[3] https://github.com/fujiapple852/trippy/issues/1104
>Can you explain why you believe that? To me it sounds like baseless scaremongering.
One word: centralization.
As we have seen throughout the years, all means of IPv4 lifetime extension have involved the introduction of state, which is bound to a central node. The HTTP/1.1 Host request header allowed the existence of reverse proxies, the invent of NAT allowed routers to no longer be "just" a dumb packet forwarder. Both technologies are involved in state tracking.
NATs also destroyed the possibility for any two nodes on the Internet to communicate with each other directly, unless workarounds like port forwarding are used. This means that all messages on the Internet must go through a central server, where there can be malicious actors sniffing your traffic. Remember Mark Zuckerberg's infamous "they trust me"? [0]
But it was still somewhat managable during the early 21st century, when free IPv4 addresses were available. Most people had only one layer of NAT (in their routers) which they owned and controlled back then, so P2P were still mostly doable, and services like Skype relied on that. Life went on.
Fast forward to the 2010s and now, we have run out of IPv4 addresses. CGNATs are now widely deployed, P2P communication cease to work. TURN was invented, which of course increased more centralization. [1] By now we have mostly given up on peer-to-peer, and moved onto "federation" where we have a web of central servers that clients can connect to -- in the end though, a central server is still a central server, and some admins of the Fediverse had been discovered performing suspicious activities.
Perhaps I worded my thoughts too strongly in my previous comment, but the trend of centralization is there and continuing. And privacy has never fared well under centralization.
The thing is, the Internet as a whole doesn't have to go down this route had we simply moved onto IPv6 and restored end-to-end communication. Then P2P is possible again. [2]
Oh well, CGNAT preserves privacy, am I right...
[0]: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traversal_Using_Relays_aroun...
[2]: https://github.com/realrasengan/dwebchat