Open Source - again!

omg · 2021-11-13 23:59:39

Hi folks,

First day with Up2p. I was browsing and downloading the various offerings, but I was getting some stress because I could not find any (links to) source. Finally I hit the info page, making it clear a lot/most of U will remain closed source. Curiously, I could not find it as a subject here either. So, time to state the painfully obvious: how can this ever become a movement, a mass movement even, if the premise of participation is that we'll have to believe and trust the devs that their code is exactly and does exactly what they say? That the browser delivers YOU the pages and not YOU and the CIA, that the miner is mining CRP and not BTC or being a honeypot proxy or a network attack relay.

I don't think we need to keep on giving examples of how things can go wrong, Q is, how can things go right without source!

Ta!

Makedonskiy · 2021-11-15 18:04:30

I am personally against the opening of sources. I don't need network forks. You can understand the developers: the software is unique, a lot of effort has been spent, and it is unwise to give it to everyone.

It is curious, but a fact: only 1-2 out of 100,000 users can conduct a real audit of the source code. Open source applications are being hacked much more often.

Thus, open sources become just a tick in marketing.

TheMerchant · 2021-11-16 14:23:47

The concern is valid, however it is very important to take a pragmatic approach to the subject and recognize the drawbacks of every decision. In this case, the developers felt the drawbacks of having open source (community division through forks primarily, but also potential exploitation) outweigh the potential benefits. While it is true that having the code open makes it available for greater scrutiny and helps gain trust, it certainly does not guarantee greater security as we have seen with so many open protocols in defi today being exploited. Ultimately, the team believes trust will be established over time and the utility of the ecosystem will help gain greater adoption. The team does also intend to obtain a 3rd party audit as well, when the code is ready.

Posi · 2022-01-01 16:06:37

Open source of a platform doesn't prove it to be good or secure and the last time I checked been open source of a platform can lead to some people emulating the platform and can also give online theft the chance to abuse the network.
Accordingly to the Utopia dev, the project is a "self-enclosed ecosystem. This means that all communication tools are available within the system with no third-party software involved."

Cromanes · 2022-01-06 14:16:31

Makedonskiy;1081 wrote:

<p>I am personally against the opening of sources. I don't need network forks. You can understand the developers: the software is unique, a lot of effort has been spent, and it is unwise to give it to everyone.</p><p>It is curious, but a fact: only 1-2 out of 100,000 users can conduct a real audit of the source code. Open source applications are being hacked much more often.</p><p>Thus, open sources become just a tick in marketing.</p>

Yes, in part, it does not guarantee the security of the code itself. But it removes the developers' responsibility for hiding a potential backdoor in an application that will collect data about you by default. And as for me this product's theme as anonymity of actions in the network should imply open source code as for self-study of what potential risks there could be and what responsibility the user can bear himself, instead of shifting the blame to those who developed it. And until a certain solution to open source is applied, the messenger "Utopia" will continue to be called, "The Business of Anonymity".

Cromanes · 2022-01-06 14:49:46

TheMerchant;1083 wrote:

The concern is valid, however it is very important to take a pragmatic approach to the subject and recognize the drawbacks of every decision. In this case, the developers felt the drawbacks of having open source (community division through forks primarily, but also potential exploitation) outweigh the potential benefits. While it is true that having the code open makes it available for greater scrutiny and helps gain trust, it certainly does not guarantee greater security as we have seen with so many open protocols in defi today being exploited. Ultimately, the team believes trust will be established over time and the utility of the ecosystem will help gain greater adoption. The team does also intend to obtain a 3rd party audit as well, when the code is ready.

Aren't certain forks of the messenger "Utopia" a guarantee that the idea and mission of Group 1984 is noble and worthy of life, and people are willing to develop it.And what potential fork will prevent the spread of cryptocurrency krypton to take the leading places, examples of this can serve the popular crypto coins Bitcoin Cash and Ethereum Classic, yes they are created in a certain counterweight to the original coins, but the consistency did not find, but more showed the consistency of the original idea. And I think that it is worth to maintain the organicity between the messenger "Utopia" and the audience, allowing to use for their own needs and to some extent to learn from self-taught new technical solutions and goals, performing their forks.

Posi · 2022-01-07 14:16:33

Cromanes;1326 wrote:

Makedonskiy;1081 wrote:
<p>I am personally against the opening of sources. I don't need network forks. You can understand the developers: the software is unique, a lot of effort has been spent, and it is unwise to give it to everyone.</p><p>It is curious, but a fact: only 1-2 out of 100,000 users can conduct a real audit of the source code. Open source applications are being hacked much more often.</p><p>Thus, open sources become just a tick in marketing.</p>
Yes, in part, it does not guarantee the security of the code itself. But it removes the developers' responsibility for hiding a potential backdoor in an application that will collect data about you by default. And as for me this product's theme as anonymity of actions in the network should imply open source code as for self-study of what potential risks there could be and what responsibility the user can bear himself, instead of shifting the blame to those who developed it. And until a certain solution to open source is applied, the messenger "Utopia" will continue to be called, "The Business of Anonymity".

I agree with what you said in the sense that open source generates trust within the Dev team, user, and the community. However, it will lead to the vulnerability of the platform but the platform will easily gain more user.

I believe there's alot of important reason why the Utopia make the source code to be close source.

Last edited by Posi (2022-01-07 21:17:38)

Cromanes · 2022-01-07 18:06:11

Posi;1345 wrote:

<div class="quotebox"><cite>Cromanes;1326 wrote:</cite><blockquote><div><div class="quotebox"><cite>Makedonskiy;1081 wrote:</cite><blockquote><div><p><p>I am personally against the opening of sources. I don&#039;t need network forks. You can understand the developers: the software is unique, a lot of effort has been spent, and it is unwise to give it to everyone.</p><p>It is curious, but a fact: only 1-2 out of 100,000 users can conduct a real audit of the source code. Open source applications are being hacked much more often.</p><p>Thus, open sources become just a tick in marketing.</p></p></div></blockquote></div><p>Yes, in part, it does not guarantee the security of the code itself. But it removes the developers' responsibility for hiding a potential backdoor in an application that will collect data about you by default. And as for me this product's theme as anonymity of actions in the network should imply open source code as for self-study of what potential risks there could be and what responsibility the user can bear himself, instead of shifting the blame to those who developed it. And until a certain solution to open source is applied, the messenger "Utopia" will continue to be called, "The Business of Anonymity".</p></div></blockquote></div><p>I agree with what you said in the sense that open source generates trust within the Dev team, user, and the community. However, it will lead to the vulnerability of the platform but the platform will easily gain more user.</p><p>I believe there's alot of important reason why the Utopia make the source code to e close source. </p>

It would be interesting to know which ones?

Posi · 2022-01-07 21:36:58

Cromanes;1350 wrote:

Posi;1345 wrote:
<div class="quotebox"><cite>Cromanes;1326 wrote:</cite><blockquote><div><div class="quotebox"><cite>Makedonskiy;1081 wrote:</cite><blockquote><div><p><p>I am personally against the opening of sources. I don&#039;t need network forks. You can understand the developers: the software is unique, a lot of effort has been spent, and it is unwise to give it to everyone.</p><p>It is curious, but a fact: only 1-2 out of 100,000 users can conduct a real audit of the source code. Open source applications are being hacked much more often.</p><p>Thus, open sources become just a tick in marketing.</p></p></div></blockquote></div><p>Yes, in part, it does not guarantee the security of the code itself. But it removes the developers' responsibility for hiding a potential backdoor in an application that will collect data about you by default. And as for me this product's theme as anonymity of actions in the network should imply open source code as for self-study of what potential risks there could be and what responsibility the user can bear himself, instead of shifting the blame to those who developed it. And until a certain solution to open source is applied, the messenger "Utopia" will continue to be called, "The Business of Anonymity".</p></div></blockquote></div><p>I agree with what you said in the sense that open source generates trust within the Dev team, user, and the community. However, it will lead to the vulnerability of the platform but the platform will easily gain more user.</p><p>I believe there's alot of important reason why the Utopia make the source code to e close source. </p>
It would be interesting to know which ones?

About backdoor in an application but people review the code they will easily trust the developer and won't shift blame them. But for the record, according to what was written in the Utopia Readme file it says "The 1984 Group, which is the anonymous development team behind Utopia, may disclose certain parts of code, specifically related to communication and encryption. However, the decentralized protocol will not be released."
Which means the main reason why the code is close source is to prevent imitation etc.

Posi · 2022-01-07 21:45:44

Cromanes;1350 wrote:

Posi;1345 wrote:
<div class="quotebox"><cite>Cromanes;1326 wrote:</cite><blockquote><div><div class="quotebox"><cite>Makedonskiy;1081 wrote:</cite><blockquote><div><p><p>I am personally against the opening of sources. I don&#039;t need network forks. You can understand the developers: the software is unique, a lot of effort has been spent, and it is unwise to give it to everyone.</p><p>It is curious, but a fact: only 1-2 out of 100,000 users can conduct a real audit of the source code. Open source applications are being hacked much more often.</p><p>Thus, open sources become just a tick in marketing.</p></p></div></blockquote></div><p>Yes, in part, it does not guarantee the security of the code itself. But it removes the developers' responsibility for hiding a potential backdoor in an application that will collect data about you by default. And as for me this product's theme as anonymity of actions in the network should imply open source code as for self-study of what potential risks there could be and what responsibility the user can bear himself, instead of shifting the blame to those who developed it. And until a certain solution to open source is applied, the messenger "Utopia" will continue to be called, "The Business of Anonymity".</p></div></blockquote></div><p>I agree with what you said in the sense that open source generates trust within the Dev team, user, and the community. However, it will lead to the vulnerability of the platform but the platform will easily gain more user.</p><p>I believe there's alot of important reason why the Utopia make the source code to e close source. </p>
It would be interesting to know which ones?

About backdoor in an application but people review the code they will easily trust the developer and won't shift blame them. But for the record, according to what was written in the Utopia Readme file it says "The 1984 Group, which is the anonymous development team behind Utopia, may disclose certain parts of code, specifically related to communication and encryption. However, the decentralized protocol will not be released."
Which means the main reason why the code is close source is to prevent imitation etc.

Cromanes · 2022-01-08 06:40:11

Posi;1358 wrote:

About backdoor in an application but people review the code they will easily trust the developer and won't shift blame them. But for the record, according to what was written in the Utopia Readme file it says "The 1984 Group, which is the anonymous development team behind Utopia, may disclose certain parts of code, specifically related to communication and encryption. However, the decentralized protocol will not be released."
Which means the main reason why the code is close source is to prevent imitation etc.

Did you resend me this message twice?

N3koSempai · 2022-06-17 05:48:33

Posi;1358 wrote:

<div class="quotebox"><cite>Cromanes;1350 wrote:</cite><blockquote><div><div class="quotebox"><cite>Posi;1345 wrote:</cite><blockquote><div><p><div class="quotebox"><cite>Cromanes;1326 wrote:</cite><blockquote><div><div class="quotebox"><cite>Makedonskiy;1081 wrote:</cite><blockquote><div><p>&lt;p&gt;I am personally against the opening of sources. I don&amp;#039;t need network forks. You can understand the developers: the software is unique, a lot of effort has been spent, and it is unwise to give it to everyone.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is curious, but a fact: only 1-2 out of 100,000 users can conduct a real audit of the source code. Open source applications are being hacked much more often.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thus, open sources become just a tick in marketing.&lt;/p&gt;</p></div></blockquote></div><p>Yes, in part, it does not guarantee the security of the code itself. But it removes the developers&#039; responsibility for hiding a potential backdoor in an application that will collect data about you by default. And as for me this product&#039;s theme as anonymity of actions in the network should imply open source code as for self-study of what potential risks there could be and what responsibility the user can bear himself, instead of shifting the blame to those who developed it. And until a certain solution to open source is applied, the messenger &quot;Utopia&quot; will continue to be called, &quot;The Business of Anonymity&quot;.</p></div></blockquote></div><p>I agree with what you said in the sense that open source generates trust within the Dev team, user, and the community. However, it will lead to the vulnerability of the platform but the platform will easily gain more user.</p><p>I believe there&#039;s alot of important reason why the Utopia make the source code to e close source. </p></p></div></blockquote></div><p>It would be interesting to know which ones?</p></div></blockquote></div><p>About backdoor in an application but people review the code they will easily trust the developer and won't shift blame them. But for the record, according to what was written in the Utopia Readme file it says "The 1984 Group, which is the anonymous development team behind Utopia, may disclose certain parts of code, specifically related to communication and encryption. However, the decentralized protocol will not be released."<br />Which means the main reason why the code is close source is to prevent imitation etc.</p>

But that makes it possible for utopia not even to be decentralized, It could be multiple servers somewhere or it could be the same identical tor protocol with a graphical interface on top.. In the end everything is left to trust in the 1984 group

Cromanes · 2022-09-04 05:06:23

N3koSempai;1821 wrote:

But that makes it possible for utopia not even to be decentralized, It could be multiple servers somewhere or it could be the same identical tor protocol with a graphical interface on top.. In the end everything is left to trust in the 1984 group

Man. Your words can really sow the seeds of doubt. Did I understand correctly that you think that Utopia with its messenger can just connect to the usual servers and then show only the graphical interface? And the fact that there are coins and blockchain system is just an independent appendage from the messenger itself?

Lucy · 2022-10-19 08:58:55

Ok so now we are here towards the end of 2022, Utopia might have had a really good competitive reason to keep it closed source in 2019, but now there are many, and I mean TONNES of new competitors in the space with similar or BETTER performing tech. Take Keet, Hypercore, Jami, Qortal, Conceal etc.

They are developing at a much faster pace and are essentially already more popular than Utopia, even while being in Alpha and Beta stages. They are ALL Open-Source.

If Utopia really has all the advanced goods that 1984 group claims, then Open Source the code and let the world see how great it really is, otherwise It looks like Utopia will just be forgotten as the alternatives become mainstream.

This can only Benefit Utopia I am certain... Unless it's not really as advanced as they say.
I don't like Trusting a third-party, that is the Opposite of what the whole Cypherpunk revolution is about.

Cromanes · 2022-11-22 09:12:17

Lucy;1910 wrote:

<p>Ok so now we are here towards the end of 2022, Utopia might have had a really good competitive reason to keep it closed source in 2019, but now there are many, and I mean TONNES of new competitors in the space with similar or BETTER performing tech. Take Keet, Hypercore, Jami, Qortal, Conceal etc.</p><p>They are developing at a much faster pace and are essentially already more popular than Utopia, even while being in Alpha and Beta stages. They are ALL Open-Source.</p><p>If Utopia really has all the advanced goods that 1984 group claims, then Open Source the code and let the world see how great it really is, otherwise It looks like Utopia will just be forgotten as the alternatives become mainstream.</p><p>This can only Benefit Utopia I am certain... Unless it's not really as advanced as they say.<br />I don't like Trusting a third-party, that is the Opposite of what the whole Cypherpunk revolution is about.</p>

I don't think open source helps utopia. On the contrary, it will hurt it. And one more question. How to prevent copyright which will be used on a commercial basis. The IT giant, Microsoft, recently allowed it.

Cromanes · 2022-11-22 09:14:46

Lucy;1910 wrote:

<p>Ok so now we are here towards the end of 2022, Utopia might have had a really good competitive reason to keep it closed source in 2019, but now there are many, and I mean TONNES of new competitors in the space with similar or BETTER performing tech. Take Keet, Hypercore, Jami, Qortal, Conceal etc.</p><p>They are developing at a much faster pace and are essentially already more popular than Utopia, even while being in Alpha and Beta stages. They are ALL Open-Source.</p><p>If Utopia really has all the advanced goods that 1984 group claims, then Open Source the code and let the world see how great it really is, otherwise It looks like Utopia will just be forgotten as the alternatives become mainstream.</p><p>This can only Benefit Utopia I am certain... Unless it's not really as advanced as they say.<br />I don't like Trusting a third-party, that is the Opposite of what the whole Cypherpunk revolution is about.</p>

And right now nobody needs blockchain technology. They only need X's, Utopia doesn't get as popular as these hype coins. However, Terra luna, Solar are not very trustworthy. Even with open source.

And so popularity works only by good work of PR managers).

Vastextension · 2022-12-21 13:02:34

Cromanes;1936 wrote:

Lucy;1910 wrote:
<p>Ok so now we are here towards the end of 2022, Utopia might have had a really good competitive reason to keep it closed source in 2019, but now there are many, and I mean TONNES of new competitors in the space with similar or BETTER performing tech. Take Keet, Hypercore, Jami, Qortal, Conceal etc.</p><p>They are developing at a much faster pace and are essentially already more popular than Utopia, even while being in Alpha and Beta stages. They are ALL Open-Source.</p><p>If Utopia really has all the advanced goods that 1984 group claims, then Open Source the code and let the world see how great it really is, otherwise It looks like Utopia will just be forgotten as the alternatives become mainstream.</p><p>This can only Benefit Utopia I am certain... Unless it's not really as advanced as they say.<br />I don't like Trusting a third-party, that is the Opposite of what the whole Cypherpunk revolution is about.</p>
And right now nobody needs blockchain technology. They only need X's, Utopia doesn't get as popular as these hype coins. However, Terra luna, Solar are not very trustworthy. Even with open source.
And so popularity works only by good work of PR managers).

Meanwhile, Terra Luna messes things up despite it being open source and there's nothing like that in the Utopia p2p ecosystem.
According to the dev, some parts of the code will be released to the public when it is time while the most important will be a close source to prevent fork

Kelechi · 2022-12-25 18:35:02

Terra Luna situation is one everybody can learn from, I am Alway very skeptical about joining any project right now because of what happened with Tera Luna and FTX, but the fact that Utopia p2p is a decentralized ecosystem male me feel very safe.

Vastextension · 2022-12-26 21:00:35

Kelechi;2118 wrote:

Terra Luna situation is one everybody can learn from, I am Alway very skeptical about joining any project right now because of what happened with Tera Luna and FTX, but the fact that Utopia p2p is a decentralized ecosystem male me feel very safe.

Honestly, I was happy issue like Terra Luna and FTX happened.
Terra Luna is a project that hype based has no genuine fundamental concept while Utopia p2p has the best fundamental concept, utility, and use case but some naive investors overlook it. Do you know that CRP and UUSD may not be accepted as payment by 1858 online stores if the issue of Terra Luna didn't happen?

Camavinga · 2023-01-10 16:26:06

I don’t get why most people in this thread are against open source, an open source project is much better than one that is closed source. In open source everyone can verify the code to know if there are any vulnerabilities in them, but in a closed source project you have to believe whatever the developers or programmers tell you.

Lanistergame2 · 2023-01-11 20:14:15

There are pros and cons to both open and closed source networks, I believe there are more cons with closed source than with open, as a closed source network depends on trust, while with one that is open source you can verify the authenticity of the codes and ensure that there are no malicious backdoors.

That being said Great projects can be run on either network.

Camavinga · 2023-01-12 18:37:37

Lanistergame2;2830 wrote:

There are pros and cons to both open and closed source networks

I don’t think there is any con to an open source network and project, if the project developers add something malicious to the code you can verify it, if they upgrade the network and there are bugs and vulnerabilities you can see it, it is open for everybody to verify, it makes things somewhat open for all to see. Open source projects and networks are the best. If you know of any con, quote my post and list them.

joanna · 2023-01-12 19:17:51

Lanistergame2;2830 wrote:

There are pros and cons to both open and closed source networks, I believe there are more cons with closed source than with open, as a closed source network depends on trust, while with one that is open source you can verify the authenticity of the codes and ensure that there are no malicious backdoors.
That being said Great projects can be run on either network.

Yes. Both open and closed source networks have advantages and disadvantages, but the idea of closed source networks having more drawbacks was because some people once abuse the system. Closed source or not, I trusted the source code of the Utopia p2p ecosystem.

Camavinga · 2023-04-04 06:45:42

joanna;2883 wrote:

Yes. Both open and closed source networks have advantages and disadvantages, but the idea of closed source networks having more drawbacks was because some people once abuse the system. Closed source or not, I trusted the source code of the Utopia p2p ecosystem.

The disadvantage with closed source is that you will trust the developers, even if you don’t know them, what if they are not to be trusted, but in open source you can verify everything by yourself and trust only yourself, this is why people like open source projects and prefer it to those that are closed source.

Detroit · 2023-04-04 16:28:51

Camavinga;6677 wrote:

joanna;2883 wrote:
Yes. Both open and closed source networks have advantages and disadvantages, but the idea of closed source networks having more drawbacks was because some people once abuse the system. Closed source or not, I trusted the source code of the Utopia p2p ecosystem.
The disadvantage with closed source is that you will trust the developers, even if you don’t know them, what if they are not to be trusted, but in open source you can verify everything by yourself and trust only yourself, this is why people like open source projects and prefer it to those that are closed source.

But whatever source they are, either open or closed are they open to everyone to know? I think some may never tell you until you've gotten deep with them.

uTalk

#1 2021-11-13 23:59:39

Open Source - again!

#2 2021-11-15 18:04:30

Re: Open Source - again!

#3 2021-11-16 14:23:47

Re: Open Source - again!

#4 2022-01-01 16:06:37

Re: Open Source - again!

#5 2022-01-06 14:16:31

Re: Open Source - again!

#6 2022-01-06 14:49:46

Re: Open Source - again!

#7 2022-01-07 14:16:33

Re: Open Source - again!

#8 2022-01-07 18:06:11

Re: Open Source - again!

#9 2022-01-07 21:36:58

Re: Open Source - again!

#10 2022-01-07 21:45:44

Re: Open Source - again!

#11 2022-01-08 06:40:11

Re: Open Source - again!

#12 2022-06-17 05:48:33

Re: Open Source - again!

#13 2022-09-04 05:06:23

Re: Open Source - again!

#14 2022-10-19 08:58:55

Re: Open Source - again!

#15 2022-11-22 09:12:17

Re: Open Source - again!

#16 2022-11-22 09:14:46

Re: Open Source - again!

#17 2022-12-21 13:02:34

Re: Open Source - again!

#18 2022-12-25 18:35:02

Re: Open Source - again!

#19 2022-12-26 21:00:35

Re: Open Source - again!

#20 2023-01-10 16:26:06

Re: Open Source - again!

#21 2023-01-11 20:14:15

Re: Open Source - again!

#22 2023-01-12 18:37:37

Re: Open Source - again!

#23 2023-01-12 19:17:51

Re: Open Source - again!

#24 2023-04-04 06:45:42

Re: Open Source - again!

#25 2023-04-04 16:28:51

Re: Open Source - again!

Board footer