Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck?

Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by itakedrugs on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @09:32AM (#16754484)

so if other users (not part of the conversation) are used as temporary servers so that messages get delivered even if the sender or receiver are never connected at the same time, what would it be called?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by dilippkumar on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @05:21PM (#16759250)

AFAIK there isn't a modern word to describe the common architecture that you describe.

About a decade ago, the phrase "hub-and-spokes network" was thrown around to describe an architecture with a central server that acted as the mediator. The term "p2p" became popular in this context. (

Napster, bittorrent, tox are all "p2p" because they don't connect to single server. Skype is not "p2p" because all packets go through the skype servers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: Why does P2P encrypted messaging still suck? by sliken on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @10:07PM (#16761200)

Skype used to be p2p, except for the original auth/login. But since then microsoft bought the company and push everything through their servers.

[ Parent | on HN ]