Skip to content

Piero Bosio Social Web Site Personale Logo Fediverso

Social Forum federato con il resto del mondo. Non contano le istanze, contano le persone

BONJOUR LE #fediverse โค๏ธ๐Ÿงก๐Ÿ’›๐Ÿ’š๐Ÿ’™๐Ÿ’œโค๏ธ๐Ÿงก๐Ÿ’›๐Ÿ’š๐Ÿ’™๐Ÿ’œ

Fediverso
24 9 42

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.

    read more

  • @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.

    read more

  • @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:

    read more

  • @PortaFed

    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.

    @lutindiscret

    read more

  • @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.

    read more

  • @jonny@neuromatch.social tracks doesn't it ๐Ÿ˜

    read more

  • @julian
    @evan @benpate @PortaFed
    Can't make heads or tails of this one

    read more

  • 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

    https://stream.firesidefedi.live

    read more
Post suggeriti
  • 0 Votes
    169 Posts
    270 Views
    @johannab No, not at all snarky. ๐Ÿ’•What is so interesting is to discern between the technical and social, and I think that most people have a very functional-technical perspective of what it means to communicate online, so to say. Consider it merely as extra channels to interact with others, more choice to connect.But of course our online social network is much more than merely a channel, and we have to 'project our social' somehow over these thin copper and fiberglass wires, while we try to make sense and interpret the social signals that come from other remote places.I think we underestimate the impact of communicating online, and the narrow 'social bandwidth' that our current networking tools support. Then we translate online situations to how we would behave offline and get wrong expectations, misconceptions, and subequenctly miscommunications.We are still all youngers online, still all learning the ropes, while we do social networking offline for 1,000's of years already.
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    12 Views
    Week in Fediverse 2026-01-02Servers- Vernissage Server v1.27.0- Ktistec v3.2.6- Pleroma v2.10.0- Wafrn v2026.01.01- NeoDB v0.12.7- PieFed v1.4.1- shops v0.1.9- Loops v1.0.0-beta.7- Mitra v4.16.0- Agora: A distributed knowledge graph- December 2025: hooo boy! (Bandwagon)Clients- Pachli v3.3.0- IceCubesApp v2.1.1- Loops Mobile App v1.0.1.19- Voyager v2.43.1- P2Play v0.10.0- tooi: A text-based user interface for Mastodon, Pleroma and friendsTools and Plugins- Mastodon to Bluesky v1.5.0- Altbot v2.5For developers- funfedi.dev schemas v0.1.0- apsig v0.6.0- apkit v0.3.7Articles- A case for organisations running their own ActivityPub servers- Fediverse predictions-----#WeekInFediverse #Fediverse #ActivityPubPrevious edition: https://mitra.social/objects/019b5b98-13e5-ff26-3605-f31d929bf9bf
  • 0 Votes
    2 Posts
    8 Views
    @GillesLeCorre2 bonne journรฉe !
  • 0 Votes
    3 Posts
    13 Views
    @smallcircles@social.coop That's my plan. I don't use any kind of session management, so all authenticated actions use HTTP signatures generated by a dedicated client key provided by the wasm module in the browser. I want to avoid any unique API calls as much as I can (although I do have a few right now).