Data and security breaches are becoming increasingly common, highlighting the vulnerabilities of existing messaging and communications platforms. Devising computational tools and systems that better protect sensitive data against malicious attacks is therefore of utmost importance.

Researchers from several institutes worldwide recently developed Quarks, a new, decentralized messaging network based on blockchain technology. Their proposed system could overcome the limitations of most commonly used messaging platforms, allowing users to retain control over their personal data and other information they share online.

  • regalia@literature.cafe
    36·
    10 months ago

    Fuck no. What is better is p2p, or federated. No Blockchain is needed, and this is one of those examples where Blockchain is jammed into something where it really doesn’t need to be, nor should it be. The last thing we want is for our encrypted messages be permanently stored. Element is federated, and they’re working on getting it to be p2p. Some nerd will probably mention XMPP too.

    • HubertManne@kbin.social
      4·
      10 months ago

      I disagree here. with p2p/federated you have to worry about if your microprovider goes out. I think blockchain would be a useful way to keep a users preferences and to keep usernames distinct.

      • Barry Zuckerkorn@beehaw.org
        9·
        10 months ago

        I disagree here. with p2p/federated you have to worry about if your microprovider goes out.

        This Quarks protocol still seems to require reliance on “nodes,” which is the same thing as a federated service, with extra steps. It’s more overhead without any of the portability you want.

        • HubertManne@kbin.social
          1·
          10 months ago

          oh sorry. I was not saying in general, not that this implementation is good. I could see the distributed ledger being used though to good effect. Unfortunately it rarely is.

      • regalia@literature.cafe
        9·
        10 months ago

        p2p has no middle man. There’s nothing to go out. Blockchain is a literal plague, especially in this scenario when a simple database can handle this. MXIDs already provide distinct usernames. Preferences are often stores client side.

        You do not need to burn a tree, push a Ponzi scheme, and make this data permanently public to solve this. That is a terrible idea, and any solution you come up with will be always better without a Blockchain.

        • HubertManne@kbin.social
          2·
          10 months ago

          I don’t think you get it. With a distributed ledger your username could be unique. sorta like the digital art pieces. So if your instance goes down you register at another one with your token and it recognizes you and associates you with everything it conceivably can (some stuff may only have been saved on the instance which is gone). So if the new instance has magazines you interacted with it should still be able to see comments as yours and such.

          • regalia@literature.cafe
            12·
            10 months ago

            Buddy wait until you hear about pgp keys or identity keys in general. No ponzi scheme and tree burning required!

            Again, there’s always a solution that’s better and doesn’t need the blockchain. Blockchain is literally never the answer unless you’re trying to kill the environment and scam others all in one go.

            • HubertManne@kbin.social
              2·
              10 months ago

              tree burning is bitcoin specific implementation. distributed ledger does not rely on processing power being wasted for no good reason. Believe me I don’t like bitcoin or its ilk but am fine with grid coin for example. pgp keys are for authentication and don’t store information. distributed ledger is not for authentication its for just like it sounds. keeping a ledger.

        • FlowVoid@midwest.socialEnglish
          2·
          10 months ago

          The blockchain Is not public. It can only be accessed by nodes whose members are in the channel.

          I’m curious whether without a blockchain there is a solution that (a) allows users to access all their encrypted messages even if any individual server goes down, (b) preserves a record of all communications/edits, and © is resistant to record tampering by a malicious server admin.

          • regalia@literature.cafe
            3·
            10 months ago

            Yeah it’s called storing things client side lol.

            Also the whole point of encryption is that it can’t be tampered with by a middle man. We’ve accomplished all of that already.

            • FlowVoid@midwest.socialEnglish
              2·
              10 months ago

              Storing client side isn’t good enough, your records could be lost or destroyed. That’s why people use Gmail.

              And it’s not just third parties, what about untrusted recipients? For example, how do you prove you sent someone a message on a decentralized system?

              • regalia@literature.cafe
                2·
                10 months ago

                you can store things encrypted

                also do you know what identity keys are? We’ve solved that decades ago with pgp keys lol

                • FlowVoid@midwest.socialEnglish
                  2·
                  10 months ago

                  Even if it’s encrypted, it can be lost or destroyed if it’s stored client side.

                  I know what identity keys are, but they don’t solve the problem. If someone says they didn’t receive your message, the best way to prove you successfully sent it is to use a distributed ledger.

                  • regalia@literature.cafe
                    2·
                    10 months ago

                    Yes there is??? Do you know what a read receipt is?

                    Again, storing messages on the blockchain is a fucking terrible idea. I don’t need to store the dumb memes my friends send to each other eternally on the blockchain, nor does anyone give a shit. If it’s important enough to want to be saved, you do this new technique called a damn backup.

                    I don’t want to open myself up to my key getting hacked and my entire life history’s messages getting leaked. I don’t want to open myself to someone stealing my device where my key is stored and having indefinite access to all my past, present, and future data. I don’t want to leave my data publicly available with all the metadata and message sizes to see for any unknown third parry, and to who is being sent what to whom. I don’t want to be vulnerable to potential encryption breaking techniques in the future. I don’t want to deal with the gas cost, the huge amount of latency that would make real time chat unviable, and the insane amount of overhead to solve an already solved problem with an objectively worse solution in every possible way.

                    These are problems that don’t need to be solved with blockchain. Every problem you’re suggesting has been solved decades ago and for absolutely free. You are dense as hell and aren’t even attempting to look at the already existing technology that has already solved this. Fuck out of here crypto bro.

          • I Cast Fist@programming.devEnglish
            2·
            10 months ago

            The blockchain Is not public. It can only be accessed by nodes whose members are in the channel.

            So, federation across channel participants, but with blockchain instead of a “shared database”?

            • FlowVoid@midwest.socialEnglish
              1·
              10 months ago

              Yes, that sounds like their goal.

              Blockchain is used to prevent a malicious participant from altering/corrupting records.

      • amki@feddit.de
        1·
        10 months ago

        Same thing with centralised services only that you have no options to choose from