@aljoscha you always treat these things as a purely technical problem and don't write about (or acknowledge what we write about) social implications. Well, we think it's worth thinking through whether an allocation system is centralized or not. We are not just trying to build an efficient system, we are also trying to build a system that embodies healthy social relations.

We might think through it and decide that you are right, and that straight up numbers are fine, or that we can leave a door open to hash identifiers later, etc. But we need to explore the possiblities first.

I think that those are the objectively simplest solution that satisfies all requirements.

objectivity.jpg

For example: allocating codes with a strictly incremental index is more centralized than allocating ranges - because whoever you've allocated the range to can then choose what to do within the range.

It doesn't necessarily matter if any two ssb instances arn't fully compatible with each other.
This protocol is already, really a suite of protocols if they have some overlap, they can communicate.