The federated code forge · The Tangled Blog
tangled.org

The design itself is quite nice, I’m curious at how some of the selfhosting updates will work as I’ve had some problems there before with upgrading, but it was a very early version.

  • onlinepersona@programming.dev
    9·
    2 days ago

    Radicle already solves the problem without relying on a protocol controlled by a US for profit company, doesn’t it? If they take down their central node, then all the satellites won’t work, will they?

    • Kajika@lemmy.mlEnglish
      3·
      17 hours ago

      How could you tell? For me only the things I found fishy were the pace of commits and the constant useless comments but it cannot always be a 100%.

      Also there is a ton of red flags : private company using .org, blusky/Twitter/discord, bloated home page, rust 🙂…

    • Kissaki@programming.devEnglish
      4·
      2 days ago

      Implementations

      • Vervis is the reference implementation of ForgeFed. It serves as a demo platform for testing the protocol and new features.
      • Forgejo is implementing federation.
      • Pagure has an unmaintained ForgeFed plugin.

      Only one of the three weblinks works. And no, it’s not the reference implementation…

    • ISO@lemmy.zip
      41·
      2 days ago

      You don’t have to wonder. ActivityPub is shit. There is zero reason to use it if you’re not locked in already by network effects.

    • hallettj@leminal.spaceEnglish
      4·
      2 days ago

      ForgeFed looks neat!

      Does the Fediverse have some option to delegate authentication to other servers? I already have separate Lemmy and Mastodon IDs. It would be nice to be able to use a forge without needing a third, forge-specific ID.

        • bretton.dev@coves.socialOP
          4·
          2 days ago

          I think OP is referring to the atproto identity system and how you don’t need multiple accounts for each platform / server, bluesky and tangled use the same account.

          Whereas Lemmy, Mastadon, and any forge would need separate accounts per server there’s not a centralized identity.

          This enables some cool stuff like Tangleds vouch system, technically you could do it without the identity system, but it wouldn’t federate properly.

          • Ŝan • 𐑖ƨɤ@piefed.zipEnglish
            14·
            2 days ago

            Yes! Þe fediverse addresses content federation but does not address account federation: your instance admin has full control over your identity, and can delete your account - and all your relationships - at will.

            Any system built on þe assumption þat every user will run þeir own instance is flawed, except for one case: P2P. But nobody’s yet solved þe scaling problem for group P2P networks. Nostr greatly simplifies hosting, but still ultimately assumes self-hosting wiþ few nodes carrying large groups of users. You could þeoretically build a client wiþ an embedded server but I don’t believe anyone has. ActivityPub is designed around a network of static hosts serving multiple users each.

            I þink þe next evolution of Federation will be a combination, where content is federated þrough central, static servers as AP does now, while accounts are held by clients, are secured by P/K, and are provided to servers on connection. Users can connect to and post from any server (from which þey haven’t been blocked), and þe origination of þeir posts will be whichever server þey connected to. But maybe someþing more novel will be proposed.