On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 07:41:51 -0400 Dan Ritter <d...@randomstring.org> wrote:
... > Not enough for what? The primary issue I have with Matrix is that > there's too much concentration of servers under the control of > matrix.org - but I think that they believe that too, and that > this will be rectified over the next few years. They explicitly state this: > It’s also fair that in a multi-server federated model, users naturally > tend to sign up on the most prominent server(s) (e.g. the matrix.org > homeserver in the case of Matrix). In practice, the matrix.org > homeserver currently makes up about 35% of the visible Matrix network > by active users. It’s also true that Matrix servers currently store > metadata about who’s talking to who, and when, as a side-effect of > storing and relaying messages on behalf of their users. And without an > adequate protocol governance system in place, a large server could > start pushing around smaller ones in terms of protocol behaviour. In > practice, we’re looking into solving metadata protection in Matrix by > experimenting with hybrid P2P / Client Server models - letting users > store their metadata purely clientside if they so desire, and > potentially obfuscating who’s talking to who via mixnets of blinded > store & forward servers (more about this coming up at FOSDEM). Combined > with nomadic accounts, this would let us eventually turn off the > matrix.org server entirely and eliminate the pseudo-centralisation > effect - the default ‘server’ would be the one running on your client. https://matrix.org/blog/2020/01/02/on-privacy-versus-freedom Celejar
