Basically with P2P things get complicated still having fixed rooms that you can find in a list or send offline messages, presumably using other nodes as temporary relays.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I imagine it comes with the problem most P2P chats come with: both sender and receiver have to be online at the same time, otherwise the message cannot be delivered.

Although, if people were serious about anonymity, they'd be using such a service (or similar).

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. I mean theoretically you could use all the other nodes, similar to Tor or I2P to relay and temporarily store chat messages and room states. I mean that is basically those networks except maybe you route a package multiple ways and mark them for late delivery. And you measure the speed and latency of nodes so better connected nodes get more workload and act as temporary floating servers. All via DHT.

Then theoretically there should be no performance difference between server based and P2P chats. But it's even more complicated. I don't even need a chat like that, really not at all. But I think it should exist already.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It's maybe difficult to maintain privacy. The destination needs to be known and has to somehow notify other nodes that it's waiting for messages. I don't know if that can lead to traffic profiling to along the path (if enough nodes are owned) to deanonimise.

The sender can probably sealed like signal does though.

Anti Commercial-AI license