saranixlol a quote from the hubzilla support channel "We keep this stuff hidden behind a curtain because a lot of folks can't handle this level of control and run away screaming that they aren't smart enough to use this software. But once you've peeked behind the curtain you'll realise that anything is possible."
Loqi[msporny] > It seems like something that users will bump into independently though, and perhaps we should have a way to advise them.
Hey @cwebber, thanks for logging the issue. You're right, we should track this somewhere. I'm a bit pressed for time, so thi...
cwebber2anyway, on that note, I think we're going to within the time frame we have left in the group be happy with getting http signatures working interoperably between servers, but LDS will remain an exploration space
cwebber2http signatures is simple enough and it already seems to be rolling out, but advising people on database storage approaches to retain signed objects is trickier
cwebber2I guess it would be a challenge Linked Data or not, just having signatures on objects that are broken apart and reconstructed, especially when they may mutate
cwebber2puckipedia: I post a comment to my list about some flowers, jaywink says "nice flowers" but can't access my followers, so my server forwards jaywink's reply to my followers
jaywinkIt's going to be sad if we can't make this functional. AP should last for a long time and fix problems. I mean this all works in Diaspora protocol without problems. I still don't see all the problems with lds but I must admit I haven't hacked on AP yet. If it was only used to sign an object and remotes always verified from the remote - I don't see what problems there would be?
cwebber2jaywink: I'm specifically asking what diaspora does about the reconstructing a signed object, where the object mutated since the signature, question
cwebber2jaywink: querying which objects now need to update their signatures on every update seems like it might take some effort; maybe it needs to be done lazily
cwebber2it seems like it would be helpful for moving from quads/triples to json-ld cleanly, and even could be used (with some overhead) to "capture" the structure of the signed object being stored. but I think as Manu pointed out, you'd still want to hash the object basically...
jaywinkI'm just babbling but have basically no time to give any input how it could work, except to highlight how it works, really simply, in the diaspora protocol. I don't see AP that different. The difference is that AP has no constraints, so people can think it as complex as they want.
jaywinkthe worst thing that could happen, IMHO, is that the spec stays the same regarding s2s delivery. IMHO http sigs or preferably ldsigs MUST be recommended as the way to go. Otherwise servers will implement one or the other and then we just create more silos
jaywinkeven though it wont support everything very well. for example, Diaspora would not be able to switch and keep their features. Which is private messages delivered to "collections" (=aspects) where the receivers don't know who is in the aspects
saranix it might be more clear to first-timers if it says "denial-of-service/spam"
cwebber2 puckipedia: saranix: https://github.com/w3c-dvcg/ld-signatures/issues/7#issuecomment-316995324
ben_thatmustbeme oh cwebber2, btw, mattl said he sent you a PR for what he does for work now
jaywink It's going to be sad if we can't make this functional. AP should last for a long time and fix problems. I mean this all works in Diaspora protocol without problems. I still don't see all the problems with lds but I must admit I haven't hacked on AP yet. If it was only used to sign an object and remotes always verified from the remote - I don't see what problems there would be?