More than just a decentralized and anonymous messaging system, BitMessage appears to also have limited social messaging capability. This follows a decentralized model in which certain machines act as “parents” for streams and will aid in advertising the clients it has in its stream, and facilitating the connection. Clients will only connect to a stream if they have a message to send or receive somewhere in that stream. Once the network gets to be a certain size, it will break itself into separate streams. BitMessage responds to this by proposing a so-called “stream” infrastructure.
This presents major issues with scalability, as has been noted with BitCoin’s system. Messages not intended for that client will simply be ignored. Then, each client attempts to decrypt the message if it is intended for that client. Similar to BitCoin’s operation, BitMessages are sent out to all users who are connected to the system. Similar to how BitCoin allows one to send money to anonymous recipients without advertising metadata to others, BitMessage communicates via simple addresses generated from public keys, which need not be tied to a specific user’s identity. One of the most prominent strengths of the BitMessage system is how it enforces anonymity. Now a newcomer to the scene proposes a different way of thinking about encrypted communication, one that borrows from its more well-known older brother, BitCoin.Ī project has been started that intends to recreate BitCoin’s decentralized P2P model for seamless message encryption and transmission.īitMessage was started by Jonathan Warr en late last year and has now made it up to version 0.2.4. Over the past few years, a handful of different encrypted messaging systems have cropped up and gained prominence, notably Cryptocat and the OTR specification. Today I propose you an interesting topic based on an article by Jacob Cook first published on
0 kommentar(er)
