|
|
|
|
|
|
by holmesworcester
1007 days ago
|
|
|
Great questions and advice! Re: business plans, ideally we'll sell premium subscriptions for features you need a server for, like video calls. The biggest difference between us and Skype is that Quiet is open source. But yes, open source businesses can rugpull too, as we saw recently with Terraform. What about our stack makes you worried about the "enough tech savvy people to fork" piece? One decision we've made deliberately is to build on the most widely-used tech, so that maintenance will require less expertise than for a homegrown stack, and so there will be existing communities around the stack that are bigger than the Quiet community. I would love to know more about what problem you envision in building a tech-savvy open source community around our stack. Too boring? If our business is upselling users to server-backed subscription plans, I think even the threat of a fork goes a long way to keeping us honest, especially since a community fork would not need to run infrastructure. If "Quiet Co." (or whatever we call ourselves) is suddenly no longer the most trusted purveyor of Quiet, we wouldn't have much of a business, which is as it should be in my view. Re: the politics of providing these tools, I have been preparing, and I have some background in the political side of this from Fight for the Future. It's funny because I am actually quite eager to get to the point where we get to make the social and political case for Quiet to a partly-skeptical world, but first I have to make something that works well on phones! And find users! Ideally we can find some awesome initial users that really tell the story of why Quiet needs to exist. |
|
|
Cryptography/cryptographic primitives/secrecy preserving architectures are a bitch and a half. :) Toss on top of having the mind/frustration tolerance to put yourself through the wringer to make all that happen without a slip up, then you run into the really hard part of taking all of that and getting regular people able to grok the thing, which takes empathy, a genuine capacity to care for the end user's time/experience, and the capability to synthesize a lotta minutiae into a limited interpersonal window. In my experience; the people with the technical chops to handle the former challenge almost always accrue deficits in the capacity for the latter, and an over abundance of the qualities to succeed in the latter aspect is almost always going to result in some level of talking past one another when dealing with your technical peeps.
It's a problem I've been ruminating on for quite a few years, because I know I'll have to solve it for my friends/family sphere before too long. The process of migrating my own mind from that crypto-weenie who actually knows what a key schedule or S-Box or what a Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange is, or what guarantees you get out of composing what primitives, who gets annoyed that other people just don't get it, or just can't be bothered to put up with a little inconvenience for the sake of reclaiming the privacy that everyone up higher in industrial hierarchy are fine with people not bothering to reclaim, to one that has the patience to sit there and try to render down for Grandma's and such that "doing this is the digital equivalent of putting something in an envelope, that will only open for the person on the other side" is... Well, not fun. It's work.
That's it I guess. I'm just now getting around to wrangling some of what were cutting edge primitives of 5 years ago, because I've lived 'under a rock' trying to get non digital natives up to speed is all. I don't believe just leaving them to die out is an acceptable approach, because if we want this to really catch on from the bottom up, you have to take cryptography, and make it easy enough a child can understand and operate it. That's hard.
It's part of why my peers think I'm nuts. I still try to tackle things like that. Computers should be bicycles for the mind. Not the Wizard of Oz.
I'll be keeping an eye on y'all. You've officially intrigued me.