[Tahoe-dev] wmf's reply to my reply

[zooko at zooko.com]

------- Forwarded Message

From: Wes Felter <wesley at felter.org>
Subject: Re: Tahoe! :-) 
Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 18:42:27 -0500
To: zooko at zooko.com

On May 6, 2007, at 6:17 PM, zooko at zooko.com wrote:

>
>> Hey Zooko, I saw the announcement and looked into it a bit, but as a
>> p2p-critic rather than a Tahoe developer I didn't see anything new
>> there compared to the good old Mojo Nation days. I am a little
>> disappointed that Foolscap is just using SSL rather than end-to-end
>> encryption. More worrying is the lack of any mention of NAT
>> traversal. So I guess I'm glad you have such well-loved, tested, and
>> documented code.
>
> You're right about all that.  Could I quote you on the tahoe-dev  
> list or a
> private Cc: to the core developers?  Perhaps we need to write more  
> docs about
> intended future development.  We're doing an incremental- 
> improvement scheme
> which I'm very pleased with, but it also means that our plans to  
> fix some of
> these problems before the first Tahoe-based product aren't  
> apparent.  You can
> find clues about these plans in roadmap.txt [1], and denver.txt [2].

Yeah, you can quote me. I didn't want to sound negative on the list.

I did look at the roadmap, but it didn't excite me that much either.

I am missing the big picture about how Tahoe ends up being a better  
backup system; are you going to run all the storage nodes yourself or  
are you going to try to use customers for storage? If the former, why  
build a P2P system rather than something S3-like (although maybe S3  
is P2P internally)? If the latter, is there any chance of it actually  
working? I guess I am interested in economics first and peer  
selection algorithms second. This goes back to the "decline of  
decentralization" discussion.

- --Wes


------- End of Forwarded Message