🥂 Buon 2026!
Fediverso
4
Posts
4
Posters
28
Views
-
🥂 Buon 2026!
🗣️ Annunciamo che il 31 gennaio, insieme a @devol, saremo tra gli speaker del @fosdem'26 a #Bruxelles: uno degli eventi più importanti per il software #opensource e in particolare per il #fediverse!
🌐 Presenteremo a livello internazionale la neonata associazione dedicata al @fediverso: @fedimedia Italia!
🥲 Un piccolo sogno che si avvera!
🌟 Speriamo che il 2026 permetta di realizzarne altri…
💸 ...in particolare rendere più sostenibile il nostro lavoro! -
undefined diggita@mastodon.social shared this topic on
undefined filippodb@mastodon.uno shared this topic on
-
🥂 Buon 2026!
🗣️ Annunciamo che il 31 gennaio, insieme a @devol, saremo tra gli speaker del @fosdem'26 a #Bruxelles: uno degli eventi più importanti per il software #opensource e in particolare per il #fediverse!
🌐 Presenteremo a livello internazionale la neonata associazione dedicata al @fediverso: @fedimedia Italia!
🥲 Un piccolo sogno che si avvera!
🌟 Speriamo che il 2026 permetta di realizzarne altri…
💸 ...in particolare rendere più sostenibile il nostro lavoro!@openforfuture @devol @fosdem @fedimedia @fediverso consiglio una visita a delirium cafè, la più vasta scelta di birra al mondo !
-
🥂 Buon 2026!
🗣️ Annunciamo che il 31 gennaio, insieme a @devol, saremo tra gli speaker del @fosdem'26 a #Bruxelles: uno degli eventi più importanti per il software #opensource e in particolare per il #fediverse!
🌐 Presenteremo a livello internazionale la neonata associazione dedicata al @fediverso: @fedimedia Italia!
🥲 Un piccolo sogno che si avvera!
🌟 Speriamo che il 2026 permetta di realizzarne altri…
💸 ...in particolare rendere più sostenibile il nostro lavoro! -
@katttivizzima @openforfuture @fosdem @fedimedia @fediverso c’è il link con tutti i dettagli 👍
-
undefined socialnetwork@mastodon.uno shared this topic on
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@jonny@neuromatch.social honestly good for you for investing the time to critique this knowing it's AI (adjacent or wholesale) involvement.
-
@julian @PortaFed
giving a further read: I can't really imagine a case where someone would a) regularly be creating signed backups and also b) know in advance where you wanted to migrate to to set the destination_did. Like if this is for the case where the instance has shut down, you might have some signed backup, but you probably haven't planned in advance where you would want to migrate, and if the instance is down you wouldn't be able to create the migration object after the fact.the validation strategy for the export is sort of mystifying to me. if the whole object is signed, then why would you need a merkle tree for objects and also an object count? if the contents of the object have changed post signing, then the signature validation will just fail and those are irrelevant.
true to form for LLM generated documents, several critical things are left undefined, like what last_accepted_sequence is or how that works.
probably the most important problem is that it's not really clear how all other instances are supposed to handle this, which is the entire hard part of a migration spec. Like, if the purpose here is to preserve identity, then you would need to have all the other instances come to see the new identity as being equivalent to the old identity, and there's no discussion of how that process works for third-party instances at all. like e.g. in FEP-1580 i had to spend a long time gaming out scenarios for how third party instances would handle a move event.
so without that it's not really an account portabiltiy spec, it's an account export/import spec, which is fine, just not really needed since signing objects and collections (which this spec should use anyway) is already described by other specs.
-
@silverpillThank you , these are important corrections and I appreciate you taking the time.
You're right on both points. I'll update the spec to reflect that FEP-ef61 authority is not actor-rooted in the way I described, and that migration is possible via outbox export-import. I was overstating the gap.
The distinction I was trying to draw is narrower:
-
I have a couple of comments regarding the spec https://codeberg.org/portafed/portafed/src/branch/main/portafed-spec/spec.md
It contains a comparison with FEP-ef61, but it is not quite correct:
- FEP-ef61 identity is not actor-rooted. The closest equivalent of FEP-ef61 identity in normal ActivityPub is a server with a domain name. A single FEP-ef61 authority can manage multiple actor documents.
- FEP-ef61 does not lack a migration flow. Strictly speaking, it doesn't need one, because data is not attached to a server and can be continuously synchronized between multiple servers. But a more familiar migration flow is also possible via outbox export-import.
-
@benpate That would be great and happy to contribute wherever it fits.
My guess on the scope decision is the same as yours: hostile-server recovery is genuinely harder, and a cooperative spec is already a lot to get right. Makes sense to tackle it separately.
Take your time reading. I'll put together a short write-up of how MigrationProof could slot into the existing spec easier to react to something concrete than to an abstract pitch.
-
@jonny@neuromatch.social tracks doesn't it 😝
-
-
Warm up the fire! We're LIVE!
Summer in Winter: Norcal Gma 2's Journey with her Dog - E79
#owncast #streaming #interview #fediverse #fedi #people #show #firesidefedi #FsF
