Multiwriter Dat could power the next Web (Video + blog post)
https://ar.al/2018/08/04/multiwriter-dat-could-power-the-next-web/ …
#ethicaltechnology #peerwebpic.twitter.com/fxBlYkencg
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Both. It doesn't manage roles, only a permission binary (can/cannot write) but you can build a system that does manage roles. I'm not sure what the state of removing write access is at the moment but I remember it being discussed.
Curious. How does it implement the multi-identity writing, protocol/authentication-wise? I've been experimenting with an 'overlay-and-reconcile' mechanism for one of my own projects, but I'm wondering if Dat might have a better solution.
(My solution can more or less be summarized as the 'ACL' consisting of a list of mutable DHT pointers in a single-owner data object, where clients retrieve-and-overlay the current object at each mutable pointer, and the owner eventually reconciles them centrally when online.)
(So non-owner writers can independently publish changes to the original data object, and every once in a while the owner combines all of the non-owner changes into the canonical copy, invalidating the overlays, so as to limit client overhead.)
(The main issue with my approach - and I'm really using too many parentheses - is that it's easy for one of the overlays to get lost due to insufficient seeding, thereby resulting in an incomplete changeset. Wondering if Dat handles this better.)
I haven't looked into that code yet byt, when I was planning on rolling my own in the same vein, I was going to handle authorisation by signing the public key into the DAG as a special authorization operation node. Deauthorisation would similarly have a special node…
… I'm assuming multi-writer Dat is using a similar scheme but I'll find out exactly how they're doing it.
Right, it's as I'd said (& documented in the HyperDB architecture document):https://github.com/mafintosh/hyperdb/blob/master/ARCHITECTURE.md#authorization …
Ah, thanks, that's a good read. Seems a bit similar to my design, but without the 'reconcile' step - how does it ensure that all the entries remain perpetually available? It seems to me like a lost entry could result in an entire branch becoming inaccessible.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.