search

alnf / toxcore

The future of online communications.
https://tox.im
GNU General Public License v3.0
7 stars 0 forks source link

wishlist: registered nicks #10

Open aaannndddyyy opened 9 years ago

aaannndddyyy commented 9 years ago

if op's have the ability to block certain usernames from being used, even if no one currently connected is using it, this allows for:

1) setting up a nick registration with operators for a given group. Then only if you authenticate you are allwed to use that nickname. (like IRC's nickserv, distributed over the group operators)

2) banning objectional nicks in a public channel

alnf commented 9 years ago

What do you mean by objectional nicks, @aaannndddyyy ?

aaannndddyyy commented 9 years ago

a small church community runs their own group chat for organiying events and for who knows paraying together. The priest and the two nuns are not always there to supervise it. They are the ony ops. They might want to set up a bot that gets op status and prevents new users from using nicks like Satan, Lucifer, IFuckTheNuns, ....

JFreegman commented 9 years ago

@aaannndddyyy This is something that a bot could deal with independently. e.g. give the bot a list of banned nicks and just have it check every new peer/nick change against the list.

landswellsong commented 9 years ago

IMO @aaannndddyyy having a pre-defined list of allowed nicknames usually only encourages creativity, so it will be a big burden on the OP without much benefit compared to the ban-by-precendent scheme.

Totally related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pqe_oqDJp0

aaannndddyyy commented 9 years ago

@JFreegman I had originally thought this could leverage the mechanism where you check for duplicate nicks. So you wouldprovide the bot with a list of registered nicks and it 'kind of occupies' them until legitimate user comes online. So you say this can be done without any changes to the groupchat itself only by the bot? Like it bans everyone who wnats to enter with a registered nick? How does he not ban the legitimate user then? Or maybe it shouln|t ban at all, but rather issue a cert that this user is authenticated?? would make it less restrictive and all names would be still useable if bot is there or not. but who presents his auth cert - just analoguous to an op cert - will be regarded as legitimate 'owner\ of a nick. registered authed nicks could then be displayed differently. similar as in irc. you can also use nicks others have registered if they do not have set autokick on. but /whois will tell you they are not authenticated.

JFreegman commented 9 years ago

@aaannndddyyy you're mixing two different features into one. A list of banned nicks would be dealt with by a bot, but nick "registering" is something that the core may have to deal with. I'll think about that some more.

aaannndddyyy commented 9 years ago

the main idea was registered nicknames. first I thought that could be done by a bot acting as a placeholder, but actually using certs might be the more decentraliyed approach. However, what do you do in giant groups? does it scale? every user would need to keep a cert for every registered user in every group he is in. The bot would then simply perform the registrations (cf. nickserv). Random peers should not be able to issue registration certificates, only op's.