Stories with Tag atproto

• Show HN: Tangled – Git collaboration platform built on atproto

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-02 20:14:15

  Verbose tl;dr

  Tangled is a new Git collaboration platform built on the decentralized atproto protocol. It aims to offer a more streamlined and user-friendly experience than traditional forge platforms like GitHub or GitLab, while also embracing the benefits of decentralization like data ownership, community control, and resistance to censorship. Tangled integrates directly with existing Git tooling, allowing users to clone, push, and pull as usual, but replaces the centralized web interface with a federated approach. This means various instances of Tangled can interoperate, allowing users to collaborate across servers while still retaining control over their data and code. The project is currently in early access, focusing on core features like repositories, issues, and pull requests.

  The blog post introduces Tangled, a novel Git collaboration platform built upon the atproto (ATP) decentralized social networking protocol. It aims to address perceived shortcomings of existing centralized Git forging platforms like GitHub, GitLab, and Bitbucket, primarily focusing on issues of vendor lock-in, data ownership, and platform governance.

  Tangled distinguishes itself by leveraging the decentralized nature of atproto. Instead of relying on a single, central server to host repositories and manage user interactions, Tangled allows users to host their repositories wherever they choose, while still benefiting from a shared social experience facilitated by the atproto network. This architecture grants users greater control over their data and reduces reliance on a single company.

  The platform facilitates several key features familiar to users of centralized Git platforms. These include exploring and discovering repositories, creating and managing issues, conducting code reviews, and participating in discussions around code changes. Tangled aims to offer a familiar user experience, mirroring the functionality found on platforms like GitHub, while operating within the decentralized atproto ecosystem.

  The post emphasizes the open nature of Tangled and its commitment to community involvement. The project is open-source, inviting contributions and feedback from the wider developer community. It also highlights the potential for future innovation within the decentralized Git space, enabled by the flexibility and extensibility of the atproto protocol.

  Tangled's development roadmap includes plans for refining existing features and expanding functionality to encompass a more comprehensive set of collaboration tools. The post expresses a vision for Tangled to become a robust and community-driven alternative to existing centralized Git platforms, ultimately empowering developers with greater ownership and control over their code and collaboration workflows. The underlying atproto architecture aims to foster a more open, interconnected, and resilient ecosystem for software development.

  • git
  • collaboration
  • platform
  • atproto
  • version control
  • Software Development
  • distributed systems
  • Decentralized
  • social coding
  • Open Source

  Summary of Comments ( 9 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43234544

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed Tangled's potential, particularly its use of the atproto protocol. Some expressed interest in self-hosting options and the possibility of integrating with existing git providers. Concerns were raised about the reliance on Bluesky's infrastructure and the potential vendor lock-in. There was also discussion about the decentralized nature of atproto and how Tangled fits into that ecosystem. A few commenters questioned the need for another git collaboration platform, citing existing solutions like GitHub and GitLab. Overall, the comments showed a cautious optimism about Tangled, with users curious to see how the platform develops and addresses these concerns.

  The Hacker News post titled "Show HN: Tangled – Git collaboration platform built on atproto" has generated a moderate amount of discussion. Many commenters express interest in the platform's potential and its use of the atproto federation protocol. There's a recurring theme of curiosity about how Tangled differentiates itself from existing Git collaboration platforms like GitHub, GitLab, and Bitbucket.

  Several commenters focus on the decentralized nature of atproto and its implications for Tangled. Some see this as a significant advantage, envisioning a future where developers have more control over their code and are less reliant on centralized platforms. They also discuss the potential for greater resistance to censorship and vendor lock-in. Others express skepticism about the feasibility of a decentralized Git platform, raising concerns about discoverability, moderation, and the potential for fragmentation.

  A compelling thread discusses the challenges of building a successful decentralized platform, highlighting the network effects that benefit centralized platforms. Commenters debate whether the benefits of decentralization are enough to overcome the convenience and established user base of existing solutions.

  Another point of discussion revolves around the specific features of Tangled and how they compare to existing platforms. Commenters inquire about features like code review, issue tracking, and CI/CD integration. Some express a desire for more detailed information on Tangled's functionality.

  Several users also raise questions about the atproto protocol itself, its maturity, and its security implications. There is a general sense of cautious optimism about the project, with many acknowledging the potential benefits of a decentralized Git platform while also recognizing the challenges involved.

  Finally, some comments express concern about the potential for abuse and the difficulty of moderating a decentralized platform. This leads to a discussion about the trade-offs between decentralization and content moderation. Overall, the comments reflect a mixture of excitement, curiosity, and healthy skepticism about the potential of Tangled and the atproto protocol.

• atproto and the ownership of identity

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-18 13:15:22

  Verbose tl;dr

  The blog post argues that atproto offers a superior approach to online identity compared to existing centralized platforms. It emphasizes atproto's decentralized nature, enabling users to own their data and choose where it's stored, unlike platforms like Twitter where users are locked in. This ownership extends to usernames, which become portable across different atproto servers, preventing platform-specific lock-in and fostering a more federated social web. The post highlights the importance of cryptographic verification, allowing users to prove ownership of their identity and content across the decentralized network. This framework, the post concludes, establishes a stronger foundation for digital identity, giving users genuine control and portability.

  Anirudh Oppiliappan's blog post, "atproto and the ownership of identity," delves into the complexities of digital identity within the context of the burgeoning atproto (now Bluesky) social networking protocol. He begins by establishing the existing paradigm of identity on the internet, highlighting how it's largely controlled by centralized platforms like Twitter and Facebook. These platforms essentially "own" your identity, dictating how it's represented, accessed, and utilized. This ownership grants them immense power, enabling them to monetize user data and exert significant influence over online discourse.

  The author then introduces atproto as a potential solution to this centralized control. Atproto aims to decentralize identity by empowering users with true ownership and portability. This is achieved through a federated architecture, analogous to email, where users can choose their service provider while maintaining interoperability across the network. This allows individuals to move their identity, including their followers, social graph, and content, between different providers seamlessly. This portability, argues Oppiliappan, fosters greater competition among providers, encouraging them to prioritize user needs and offer better services.

  The blog post further explores the technical underpinnings of atproto's decentralized identity system. It explains the concept of Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs), which are globally unique identifiers that are controlled by the user, not a platform. These DIDs form the foundation of atproto's identity layer, allowing users to assert control over their online presence. Oppiliappan meticulously details how DIDs function, explaining how they are resolved to DID Documents, which contain information about the user's identity, including cryptographic keys and service endpoints. This architecture allows for verifiable credentials and secure communication between users, all without reliance on a central authority.

  Furthermore, the post underscores the importance of interoperability in a decentralized social network. It emphasizes that atproto is designed to facilitate seamless communication between different servers, ensuring that users can interact regardless of their chosen provider. This stands in stark contrast to the walled gardens of existing social media platforms.

  Finally, the author acknowledges the challenges associated with building and adopting a decentralized social network. He recognizes the need for robust moderation tools and mechanisms to prevent abuse, while simultaneously upholding the principles of free speech and user autonomy. The post concludes with an optimistic outlook on the future of atproto, suggesting that it holds the potential to revolutionize online identity and empower users in the digital age by returning ownership and control to individuals, fostering a more democratic and user-centric online experience.

  • atproto
  • identity
  • decentralized identity
  • self-sovereign identity
  • digital identity
  • ownership
  • web3
  • social media
  • fediverse
  • bluesky

  Summary of Comments ( 11 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42748101

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed the implications of atproto, a decentralized social networking protocol, for identity ownership. Several commenters expressed skepticism about true decentralization, pointing out the potential for centralized control by Bluesky, the primary developers of atproto. Concerns were raised about Bluesky's venture capital funding and the possibility of future monetization strategies compromising the open nature of the protocol. Others questioned the practicality of user-hosted servers and the technical challenges of maintaining a truly distributed network. Some saw atproto as a positive step towards reclaiming online identity, while others remained unconvinced, viewing it as another iteration of existing social media platforms with similar centralization risks. The discussion also touched upon the complexities of content moderation and the potential for abuse in a decentralized environment. A few commenters highlighted the need for clear governance and community involvement to ensure atproto's success as a truly decentralized and user-owned social network.

  The Hacker News post titled "atproto and the ownership of identity," linking to a blog post about identity on the web, has generated a modest number of comments, mostly focusing on the practicalities and philosophical implications of decentralized identity systems like AT Protocol (formerly known as Bluesky).

  Several commenters express skepticism about the true ownership of identity in such systems. One commenter argues that even with decentralized systems, individuals are still reliant on the platform providers for essential services like discoverability and storage. They point out that while users might "own" their data in a technical sense, they are still subject to the platform's rules and could be de-platformed, effectively losing access to their online identity within that ecosystem.

  Another commenter raises concerns about the complexity of managing a decentralized identity. They suggest that the average user may not have the technical expertise or the inclination to manage cryptographic keys and navigate the intricacies of a distributed system. This complexity, they argue, could limit adoption and create a barrier to entry for non-technical users.

  There's a discussion around the trade-offs between decentralization and convenience. One commenter highlights the appeal of centralized platforms like Twitter, where the ease of use and built-in network effects outweigh the concerns about centralized control for many users. They question whether decentralized systems can offer a comparable user experience and achieve widespread adoption.

  A few commenters discuss the potential for abuse and harassment in decentralized systems. The lack of central authority, they argue, could make it more difficult to moderate content and protect users from harmful behavior. They also express concerns about the proliferation of fake identities and the potential for impersonation.

  Some comments explore the philosophical aspects of online identity. One commenter questions the very notion of a singular, unified online identity, arguing that individuals might prefer to maintain separate identities for different contexts and communities. They suggest that decentralized systems could enable this kind of fragmented identity management.

  Finally, there are a few comments that express cautious optimism about AT Protocol and decentralized identity in general. While acknowledging the challenges, these commenters believe that decentralized systems have the potential to empower users and create a more open and equitable internet. They see AT Protocol as a promising step in this direction, but emphasize the need for careful consideration of the practical and social implications of decentralized identity.