DEN Chat is looking great. But you created a new chat protocol? We've been working on Concord already: https://concordprotocol.org/ What are the chances our work could converge here? It looks like the...
Aye, it seems like den chat was released around a month prior to the announcement of the concord prototcol (and i noticed concord a month ago), and, and yea from what i looked into, it seems like we concord and nip-chat has basically the same north-star, but took different decisions to get there.
Regarding convergance, i'm not sure (actually not sure), as it seems like the differences is on the privacy aspect (concord wins there. nip-chat just does simple encryption of the content and pretty much all metadata is public, that was a deliberate decision as i didn't want to add complications to the systems and honest about the metadata leaks), and the second difference is how someone is part of a group and scaleability (i think during my planning phase, i reached where concord was regarding encryption and secrets delivery, however, i was trying to push for massive scale if possible (millions, yet to be tested of course) and noticed that won't nessarily do well with what i reached at the time regarding normally sharing a secret each time it gets updated, and didn't want to do MLS as that's too heavy and complicated, but found out about LKH and it seems like that was the sweetspot to handle everything at scale). There are more differences, but those two seem like the biggest differences.
Might have misunderstood things, totally possible.
If convergance somehow happens, nice, but if not, i don't think there'd be a problem, nip-chat/denchat can be view as the general type of event-based chat protocol, where concord/armada can be viewed as the more private focused event-based chat protocol, and learn from each other the pros and cons as they happen. I'd imagine the options would be nip-chat-denchat (general) / concord-armada (private) / mls-marmoot (snowden).
I'm using concord as well btw, on vector, chattin every now and then.
Regarding convergance, i'm not sure (actually not sure), as it seems like the differences is on the privacy aspect (concord wins there. nip-chat just does simple encryption of the content and pretty much all metadata is public, that was a deliberate decision as i didn't want to add complications to the systems and honest about the metadata leaks), and the second difference is how someone is part of a group and scaleability (i think during my planning phase, i reached where concord was regarding encryption and secrets delivery, however, i was trying to push for massive scale if possible (millions, yet to be tested of course) and noticed that won't nessarily do well with what i reached at the time regarding normally sharing a secret each time it gets updated, and didn't want to do MLS as that's too heavy and complicated, but found out about LKH and it seems like that was the sweetspot to handle everything at scale). There are more differences, but those two seem like the biggest differences.
Might have misunderstood things, totally possible.
If convergance somehow happens, nice, but if not, i don't think there'd be a problem, nip-chat/denchat can be view as the general type of event-based chat protocol, where concord/armada can be viewed as the more private focused event-based chat protocol, and learn from each other the pros and cons as they happen. I'd imagine the options would be nip-chat-denchat (general) / concord-armada (private) / mls-marmoot (snowden).
I'm using concord as well btw, on vector, chattin every now and then.
1