I'm aware that Session has been discussed twice before on this community, but the last thread was 6 months old so excuse my starting a new one.
There's one big concern I wanted to bring up, which is the disagreements over whether it has forward secrecy. The spec says it does, but I've found two other sources saying it doesn't:
https://restoreprivacy.com/secure-encrypted-messaging-apps/session/ (search for "Perfect Forward Secrecy removed") https://www.securemessagingapps.com
Why are they saying this? Is there a critical caveat to Session's forward secrecy (does it not have it in closed groups?), or are both sources just wrong?
(I've also heard one source say its closed groups are limited to 10 members which would be a showstopper for me and another source say they're limited to 100 and the spec says 500 so i don't know what to believe.)
I'm also concerned about it being built on top of a blockchain and cryptocurrency, not because I'm suspicious of cryptocurrency in general but because I find it difficult to understand, and because that it costs thousands of dollars to run a Session node seems to me like the network is bound to be owned exclusively by a few rich companies and investors. Is it? Is there a place I can see who owns how much of it, particularly how much is owned by the Oxen developers?
UPDATE: I believe I've just learned that Sesison DOES NOT have forward secrecy or deniability; the whitepaper linked on their CURRENT website is outdated. https://getsession.org/blog/session-protocol-technical-information
What cryptocurrency that's properly decentralized can handle enough transactions for it to be useful?
I think having democratic control (via the state) over the money is pretty important. Also cash has a lot of advantages as well.
The state is the greatest enemy of human freedom and peace, so I will withdraw from this thread.
Are you anti government? I don't like states as well, I meant to say government.
Of course, I am an anarchist! Though I am curious what distinction you're drawing between states and governments.
I think that a local government of people who are appointed by the people to do something specific would be viable in an anarchist society. To me the point is that these people can't make broad decisions on their own, they have to be sent with an assignment.
This sounds exactly like the typical rhetoric shared by socdems and constitutionalists: saying that the government is "appointed by the people", when in fact every official or law supported by some of the people is opposed by the rest of the people.
This seems too vague to be a meaningful difference. What is a "broad" decision? What sort of assignment will they be "sent" with? What exactly can these people do, and what happens if some of the people don't like their decision?
Most anarchist societies that I have read about did have some kind of assemblies? And since not everyone will go there, people are sent. That's a governmental structure.
How else would you organize a society? For example housing? There is need for organization in a society. In an organization there are governmental decisions that need to be made. Not top-down, but bottom up.
Um, you didn't really answer any of my questions. You just added more vague statements like "there is need for organization in a society" and "not top-down, but bottom up".
Yes, you'll have to find a compromise. Peer-to-peer negotitation is strenuous and offers no guarantee that you'll come to any agreement at all. But what do you propose should be done if you can't reach a compromise? Is the assembly going to pick one and force both of you to accept it? Also, who is on this assembly? How are they appointed? You can't just say there should be an assembly that helps you reach a compromise and leave it at that.