password_reset

yes. users actively replicate data, not passively. they have inherent control over what they pass on. If a community doesn't want to replicate your data, then go to find one that does.

yes. 1) it would be significantly less secure - compromising either device would compromise both. Imagine an airplane with two engines that needs both to fly - a single engine plane is actually safer - because the chance of loosing one of one is less than the chance of loosing one of two, (assuming chance of engine failure is independent) Use a separate key on each device is like a two engine plane that can still fly with one engine - this is significantly safer than a single engine plane.

2) it would greatly complicate the replication protocol, having to take into account forks, rather than assuming append only, where you can represent the current synced state with a single counter.

correct, patchwork is the UI, ssb is the database.

you have had the same ideas as we did! this is roughly how secure scuttlebutt works.

absolutely. ssb avoids using DHT for these reasons (and to prove you can build something interesting without using them)

also note: DHT: hash table, BlockChain: linked list. but there are a lot more datastructures than that!