Which keyserver

[Stefan Claas]

Andrew Gallagher wrote:
 
> 
> > On 19 Sep 2020, at 21:06, Stefan Claas <sac at 300baud.de> wrote:
> > 
> > *With all due respect*, the problems you mention with the SKS protocol is IMHO absolutely solvable with hockeypuck if the
> > author implements the same Mailvelope or Hagrid confirmation process for its users
> 
> If you have not yet read the mega threads from a year or two back over on the sks mailing list discussing how filtering is
> incompatible with open synchronisation, I suggest you do so before opining further. I really don’t have the energy to explain
> it again! ;-) tl;dr: if you don’t have either a central authority or an agreed, future-proof zkp system of verification
> (itself a Very Hard Problem) then your decentralised network goes split brain at the slightest provocation. 
> 
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/sks-devel/2018-05/msg00009.html
> 
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/sks-devel/2019-02/msg00010.html
> 
> I’d also suggest reading DKG’s proposals for what *is* technically possible, as they are pretty comprehensive: 
> 
> https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/sks-devel/2019-04/msg00002.html
> 
> Finally, I would suggest continuing any technical discussions on sks-devel rather than here as we are veering off topic.

I am not interested to discuss old SKS issues/proposals further on the SKS mailing list
with (former) SKS operators and only wanted to bring my POV to GnuPG users attention.

I am aware of dkg's fine draft and his other valuable contributions he made.

I stand by my points that hockeypuck can solve the issues and will respect your
wish to not further discuss technical SKS issues here on the GnuPG Mailing List.

In case dkg is reading this thread, maybe he, as highly respected community member and
skilled programmer, can discuss these things with the hockeypuck author on GitHub, in
case he has time and is willing to do so. 

Regards
Stefan