Re: [GNU/consensus] Tox funding

[carlo von lynX]

On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 08:44:39AM -0300, hellekin wrote:
> [1]:
> http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/priority-projects/highpri
> orityprojects#Replaceskype

What an oddly redundant URL...

Actually, in most political/working groups Mumble has successfully replaced
the use of Skype. A tool that cannot do scalable multi-user conferences
probably isn't so very interesting any more. Also by now you can launch
a WebRTC session from a bunch of Javascript lines integrated into an IM
add-on, if you really need end-to-end encrypted telephony. But usually
secrets do not need to be shared between individuals.. they are usually
about groups.

And, my usual perspective is... what about the metadata?

So how does Tox mingle with this situation? What is special about it that 
it had to do its own P2P framework, merely re-using insecure DHT technology?

You could say it's a great UI for future metadata-protective applications
but I see at least a hundred codebases with great UI of which none is being
adapted to share a common P2P framework. I have such feeling also about IPFS,
owncloud, ethereum, Maidsafe.. so many wheels being re-invented each day
just to do some bits of the stack differently while the rest is outdated.
Like most of these projects fail at delivering certain security properties
like resistance to sybil attacks or a by-design protective attitude towards
metadata...

We need more convergence.
We need more consensus.

We need financing for a coherent architecture, not side projects with systemic
design flaws.

Maybe I'm biased. What do you think, hellekin. Am I missing a piece of the 
picture?