Matches for a, 205125 total results Sorted by newest | relevance
Sun Aug 21 11:30:56 UTC 2016 <znort987> kakobrekla: and that's not exactly a very recent one either lol
Sun Aug 21 11:27:02 UTC 2016 <kakobrekla> well the first time was also 'why is it down for a week'
Sun Aug 21 11:25:51 UTC 2016 <kakobrekla> if you would have a decentralized thing it perhaps would not have forked
Sun Aug 21 11:13:00 UTC 2016 <Framedragger> ideally one would be able to reconstruct a combined graph with some nice wot-tool and then observe the uh bottlenecks and whatnot
Sun Aug 21 11:12:57 UTC 2016 <kakobrekla> time to repost (From a famous pankkake post) http://pankkake.headfucking.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/WeTakeOurselvesVerySeriously.jpg
Sun Aug 21 11:12:12 UTC 2016 <pankkake> well, given they all know each other already and it's a fairly closed circle I don't see the point of it existing in the first place
Sun Aug 21 11:09:11 UTC 2016 <kakobrekla> gpg is a pos anyway and its a miracle we still use this old tech tbh
Sun Aug 21 11:08:08 UTC 2016 <pankkake> I would see it that way: ratings are signed and used however you want. however, you can submit them to a centralized db which will construct a wot (and could additonaly take "i've changed my key" commands)
Sun Aug 21 11:07:42 UTC 2016 <kakobrekla> as for not allow key change, dun think this is a good idea
Sun Aug 21 11:07:40 UTC 2016 <Framedragger> hmm i guess ideally upon key update, all previous ratings would need to be re-signed, ideally.. and while this could be batch-automated on the user's part, it would require quite a bit of work :/
Sun Aug 21 11:06:17 UTC 2016 <punkman> or to not allow a wot identity to change keys
Sun Aug 21 11:05:47 UTC 2016 <punkman> you post a signed msg with your new key, wot stores it
Sun Aug 21 11:05:43 UTC 2016 <Framedragger> kakobrekla: well, all of that could be taken into account; if there was, say, a proper key update process, so that continuity of identity could be preserved
Sun Aug 21 11:03:59 UTC 2016 <kakobrekla> can you even verify a sig with a key that has been revoked ? i dunno if i ever tried
Sun Aug 21 11:02:52 UTC 2016 <kakobrekla> yes, but keys also get revoked and changed and it makes for quite a mess
Sun Aug 21 11:02:39 UTC 2016 <znort987> well I assumed that the whole wot thing needed no central trusted db (given where we are :) ), but looks like I misunderstood how the whole thing is constructed. If ratings were just gpg-signed deeds involving gpg fingerprints, there would be no forks, just a matter of making sure info is dupliated enough. anyhow, thx for the clarifications guys.
Sun Aug 21 10:59:22 UTC 2016 <punkman> both forks took a one time snapshot of previous ratings database, there are no plans to make them talk to each other
Sun Aug 21 10:56:06 UTC 2016 <znort987> punkman: I am under the impression that a rating given is some sort of gpg-signed statement involving gpg-sigs as ids, no ? In which case, as long as properly broadcasted, it should make it to all wots at once. or am I missing something ?
Sun Aug 21 10:54:22 UTC 2016 <znort987> kako: yeah, was poking at deedbot to get the rating comments out, didn't find a way
Sun Aug 21 10:51:27 UTC 2016 <znort987> was the WOT split/forked after the great schism ? I can't seem to find a web page that presents an up to date version