As opposed to passwords, which people know are secret[citation needed], links are shared. I mean, Google Drive literally calls it "Sharing", so who will stop sharing after the intended recipients have got it?
Sharepoint and Google drive really feel like they have gone out of their way to make the permissions scheme as convoluted as possible, and it's never clear for me whether I've shared it in a way that permissions can propagate from those I shared it with or not. sometimes I can further share a received Sharepoint document without issue, other times I cannot, and I don't know what the difference is. some of my shared docs that are only shared with specific users can be shared freely apparently, other times when it gets shared further I get automated emails with access requests, even though the public access list is disabled/empty on both cases.
I really wish that the user:group:world wide model was the basis for these permission schemes and it was easier to just set people/groups and the specific actions they can take on a shared file/document. I get why the companies call it sharing, but it shouldn't be thought of as sharing, it should be Grant Access. I think it gives a better mindset for what you're actually doing, and the design should be around the idea you're giving access, not sharing, which is not the same thing to me.
I was rather shocked to learn that the mechanism for creating groups, in the sense of access control, is the Google Groups product, also known as collaborative forums, or one of Usenet's modern homes. And this feature works for individual users as well as Workspaces for Business. I just created a Google Group consisting of my three personal accounts, and I shared a Doc with them!
The three levels of sharing persmissions on Drive are: "View", "Commenter", and "Editor". The second level also permits "editing suggestions" which will prompt the Doc owner to accept or reject. These also have semantics for folders.
And then, there is a little options-gear where you can twiddle additional permissions for certain levels of access. In my personal account, they're permissive by default. Meh.
Because its remaining an issue enables "value extraction". Magic wormhole would work if people knew about it but somehow software that promotes itself by honest word-of-mouth has difficulty competing with software that is bundled with Windows or is made by the world's largest advertising corporation.
There is no release artifact that I can easily open and run on the github page.
To that end you can use a website like https://www.toffeeshare.com/ to send files directly to another person via your browser via a P2P connection, without an account.
2. It doesn't actually replace a USB drive. Most people I know e-mail files to themselves or host them somewhere online to be able to perform presentations, but they still carry a USB drive in case there are connectivity problems. This does not solve the connectivity issue.
3. It does not seem very "viral" or income-generating. I know this is premature at this point, but without charging users for the service, is it reasonable to expect to make money off of this?
Who is the third party when using software like WASTE. There is none. There is no "monetisation". A commenter thread has been running WASTE running since 2003.^1 There is no Bay Area-based "WASTE, LLC" or "WASTE, Inc."^2 that must, among other things, pay thousands of tech bros, remain "free", be allowed to operate in all countries and stay in business, let alone for 20 years.
WASTE predates "cloud computing".
1. Went from being top comment to being critiqued by tech bros.
2. Google, LLC or Dropbox, Inc. for example.
It's possible for its users to run their own Magic-Wormhole rendezvous servers but the author(s) hardcodes someone else's into the code!
There will never be a shortage of middlemen on the internet.
In contrast, WASTE asked users to register with a dynamic DNS provider.
IMHO (yours may differ) much of what we use the internet for, namely person-to-person or person-to-small-group communication, could be accomplished using such software, as an alternative but not a replacement for doing these tasks over someone else's website. Those websites have grown to such ridiculous size, backed by entire datacenters, that people refer to them as "services" and "platforms". But for the task of communicating over the internet, as the programmer saying goes, "There's more than one way to do it." With the gigantic websites run by other people, there's an incentive for advertising. Large audiences and easy access to them, not to mention the ability to eavesdrop and track behaviour. With small networks managed only by the participants using software they choose, that incentive does not exist because advertising is relatively infeasible. For example, the top commenter in this thread states he has been running a WASTE network for years. How does one inject advertising and track consumer behaviour on his network. The answer is they don't. And IMHO that's one reason why this category of software is so useful.