TryQuiet
Quiet clients should only connect to Quiet-controlled non-Tor addresses
We haven't fully thought through the implications of people running their own non-Tor Quiet peers/servers, so Quiet clients should restrict usage of non-Tor addresses/server to domains or subdomains we control.
I would like to point out that: restrict usage of non-Tor addresses/servers != should only connect to [...] non-Tor addresses/servers. These are polar opposites.
I would like to point out that: restrict usage of non-Tor addresses/servers != should only connect to [...] non-Tor addresses/servers. These are polar opposites.
Say more?
The context on this is that we need to provide a centralized mechanism for push notifications on iOS, and including Tor with this will not work, because we don't think Tor will run and connect quickly enough, even if we're able to get it to run in the 12MB memory limit for push notification extensions on iOS, which itself would be very difficult.
So we'll have an optional server that you connect to directly, at least on iOS. (On other platforms we can provide the option to connect to this server only over Tor, but I don't know how well this will work.)
We want to let people host their own, but we have to figure out how to do this in a way such that it's clear to users which hosted instance they are using/trusting, and that they are no longer using ours.
If people want to attempt to use Tor VPN on iOS they should be able to do that, assuming it's reliable for intercepting all traffic.
I'm interested to hear what you think! Making messaging work on iOS is a must for all of the potential users we're talking to. There are so few teams that don't have a single iOS user, and for a team to use Quiet, everyone in the team must be able to use Quiet.
I do not have iOS, and I am not familiar with it as much, but I have a question. Is it currently possible to self-host a server?
in a way such that it's clear to users which hosted instance they are using/trusting, and that they are no longer using ours.
I think that is an UI/UX problem, it should not be too difficult. :D
I do not have iOS, and I am not familiar with it as much, but I have a question. Is it currently possible to self-host a server?
We're deferring this until we get things working in the "hosted by us" scenario, but in the future it definitely will be and we will make it as easy as possible. One really nice thing about Quiet for self-hosters is that the uptime and resource requirements will be much more relaxed than say, hosting a Matrix server. The p2p network can be responsible for storing old messages or large files, so self-hosters will be able to set almost arbitrary caps on storage without impacting functionality too much.
And if the server goes down most users will still be able to communicate.
I think that is an UI/UX problem, it should not be too difficult. :D
Yep! It's just very sensitive so we want to get it right, and we want to order our work optimally. It might seem simple but just having an additional case to consider, multiplied by all the existing cases, creates more work at this stage.
For now, people who want nothing to do with our server can stay in pure p2p mode.