I'm not quite sure but I see the old proposal I co-authored with Jay Graber when Bluesky was in its "what should Bluesky be" phase about ActivityPub + ocaps mentioned in this writeup about bluesky and ATProto https://whtwnd.com/alexia.bsky.cyrneko.eu/3...
-
I'm not quite sure but I see the old proposal I co-authored with Jay Graber when Bluesky was in its "what should Bluesky be" phase about ActivityPub + ocaps mentioned in this writeup about bluesky and ATProto https://whtwnd.com/alexia.bsky.cyrneko.eu/3l727v7zlis2i
But it's linked to suggest that ATProto has ocaps in it, and afaik that's not true, right? Is capability security part of the design in some planned state? I only ask because though this isn't written up by a core bluesky dev, Paul Frazee who is a core bluesky dev, reposted it saying he thought it was a good writeup
(FWIW not really much of anything from the co-proposal made it into ATProto afaict, they went a fairly different direction, which is fine, I just found that confusing)
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Christine Lemmer-Webber last edited by
@cwebber afaik nope, ocaps aren't part of bsky or atproto. in fact ocap is only mentioned once in that article and nowhere else i can find
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
@cwebber then again the article also claims that "it's not centralized" despite there being several points of centralization -- plc.directory, the app.bsky namespace, etc make this about as decentralized as github, except you can host sharded repos so it's more like a distributed github. not meaningfully federated though, bc of the aforementioned dependencies on the identity layer and the namespace for all the repos/records
