[HN Gopher] The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of s*
___________________________________________________________________
The AT protocol is the most obtuse crock of s*
Author : todsacerdoti
Score : 27 points
Date : 2023-05-09 22:28 UTC (31 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (urbanists.social)
(TXT) w3m dump (urbanists.social)
| barathr wrote:
| I'm curious how this will play out for BlueSky with some
| fundamental human readability vs. decentralization tradeoffs such
| as the ICN naming tradeoff
| (http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/pubs/networking/ICSI_naminginco...)
| and Zooko's triangle. Often folks point to biometric binding for
| DID's to get around Zooko's triangle, which is problematic from a
| privacy/trust standpoint.
|
| Other systems such as Mastodon avoid running into these problems
| because of direct and implicit use of DNS for the namespace. (And
| use of DNS embedding in DIDs ends up undermining the value of
| flat naming.)
| rektide wrote:
| > _It turns out using Git, which is almost always used with a
| centralized 'remote', to do federation, which needs to be weakly
| consistent, IS A BAD IDEA!!!!!_
|
| Given that a user owns their feed, I'm not sure why this is a bad
| idea?
|
| I want to take this critiques here seriously but there's not a
| ton to grasp onto. It definitely didn't feel great that AtProto
| built from bare ground, reinvented json-schema & OpenAPI for no
| reason. But ultimately this is one of a number of grievances that
| feels like doesn't really matter. It's stupid & dumb but in the
| end it doesn't matter. It's hard to tell which of these points
| really have hard & real impact. And which are just bias.
|
| The general feeling is an unencumbered letting out of biases,
| which makes it harder to trust.
| barathr wrote:
| My limited understanding of the problem about git as the basis
| for user data storage is that it then would expose the
| complexity of git rebasing and the rest via federation. Git is
| great with a centralized remote (like I believe the original
| post is getting at) but less so in a federated setting.
| jug wrote:
| With all that screaming from a user on the primarily competing
| network, I really need to hear a response from the Bluesky team
| to form an opinion here. And understand better why this guy is
| extremely upset about this destined-to-fail network.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Any other embedded programmers or older people that remember what
| an AT protocol _really_ is confused every time they see a story
| about Bluesky?
| floxy wrote:
| I was just about to post that this article isn't about the AT
| modem commands.
|
| https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Serial_Programming/Modems_and_...
| ?
| capableweb wrote:
| > I think the fundamental reason why we keep seeing more and more
| bullshit protocols and projects pop up like this is one
| fundamental mindset: a refusal to attribute the problems of the
| modern internet solely to capitalism.
|
| I mean, I'm sure they have some points in this ranty thread of
| toots, but it's hard to take it serious when it ends up blaming
| it all on capitalism (which, I hear you brother, I'm no fan
| either) and it's FILLED WITH SHOUTING FOR NO GOOD REASON.
|
| Sometimes, when you feel strongly about something, it's useful to
| write a first draft, and come back to it after cooling down for a
| day or two, and rewrite it to be more nuanced.
|
| The AT Protocol has many flaws, like any protocol, that much is
| evident. But I don't think this toot-thread gives a accurate view
| of those flaws. It also doesn't seem to consider that all these
| different protocols make different tradeoffs, and none of the
| protocols try to be "one protocol to rule them all". They are
| simply better at some things, and worse at others.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-09 23:00 UTC)