For the third time, what's the basis of the claim that walterbell/submitter is pro-bitcoin? You're making a claim about a "group of three" where there's no data to include walterbell in the group, so that leaves an alleged "group" of two, i.e. a pair. Of the alleged pair, one person has posted once in this thread, the other posted ~20X. So you're referencing one (1) person, author of the article, whose affiliation is stated at the top of the IETF draft, no questioning needed.
> if you want to build a peer-to-peer network, then you will replace the server with a validation function running on each peer, and authentication with a crypto scheme. But we aren't at the point of trying to standardize that stuff yet.
And a follow-up question by sagichmal:
How do you break a GET request of some state blob into "granular patches" if the state is encrypted?
For the third time, what's the basis of the claim that walterbell/submitter is pro-bitcoin? You're making a claim about a "group of three" where there's no data to include walterbell in the group, so that leaves an alleged "group" of two, i.e. a pair. Of the alleged pair, one person has posted once in this thread, the other posted ~20X. So you're referencing one (1) person, author of the article, whose affiliation is stated at the top of the IETF draft, no questioning needed.
To salvage some value from this sub-thread, I found a crypto reference in this 2019 Braid post by toomim, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21642051
> if you want to build a peer-to-peer network, then you will replace the server with a validation function running on each peer, and authentication with a crypto scheme. But we aren't at the point of trying to standardize that stuff yet.
And a follow-up question by sagichmal:
Question on encrypted state and possible "crypto schemes" for authentication in P2P networks built on Braid-HTTP, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40484475