<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><br><div dir="ltr"><blockquote type="cite">On 19 Sep 2020, at 21:06, Stefan Claas <sac@300baud.de> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span>*With all due respect*, the problems you mention with the SKS protocol is IMHO absolutely solvable with hockeypuck if the author</span><br><span>implements the same Mailvelope or Hagrid confirmation process for its users</span></div></blockquote><br><div>If you have not yet read the mega threads from a year or two back over on the sks mailing list discussing how filtering is incompatible with open synchronisation, I suggest you do so before opining further. I really don’t have the energy to explain it again! ;-) tl;dr: if you don’t have either a central authority or an agreed, future-proof zkp system of verification (itself a Very Hard Problem) then your decentralised network goes split brain at the slightest provocation. </div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/sks-devel/2018-05/msg00009.html">https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/sks-devel/2018-05/msg00009.html</a></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/sks-devel/2019-02/msg00010.html">https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/sks-devel/2019-02/msg00010.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>I’d also suggest reading DKG’s proposals for what *is* technically possible, as they are pretty comprehensive: </div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/sks-devel/2019-04/msg00002.html">https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/sks-devel/2019-04/msg00002.html</a></div><div><br></div><div><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Finally, I would suggest continuing any technical discussions on sks-devel rather than here as we are veering off topic.</span></div><div><br></div><div>A</div></body></html>