



You said:
I find myself doing incredible things vibe coding and want to revisit an old idea with a new frame. 

Shareat needs a new name, but if we strip out the money and have everything be "store and serve 3x" what you post with popularity based load balancing and original + 1 copy nearby goal I think we could make this and release it darn quick.

{ "project": "Share At", "version": "1.0", "last_updated": "[DATE]", "overview": { "description": "Share At is a decentralized content-sharing and private data exchange platform built on Disserver. It enables users to post, share, and access encrypted and public content while maintaining privacy and decentralized control.", "relation_to_disserver": "Share At utilizes Disserver for distributed storage and blind-hosting but introduces its own encryption, access control, and social sharing features.", "key_features": [ "End-to-end encrypted private content", "Follower-based hosting for redundancy", "Peer-to-peer key exchange and private access control", "Customizable privacy levels for posts and shared content", "Receiver-paid delivery model for sustainable content hosting", "Integration with Disserver for decentralized storage" ] }, "core_terminology": { "keep": "User stores their own content within Share At.", "deliver": "User accesses or shares stored content.", "hold": "User participates in blind-hosting for redundancy.", "serve": "User makes stored data available for others." }, "privacy_and_security": { "encryption": { "type": "AES-256 encryption for private posts and content", "scope": "All private content is encrypted before storage on Disserver", "public_vs_private": "Public content is openly accessible, while private posts remain encrypted and only accessible via shared keys" }, "key_exchange": { "method": "DHT-based peer-to-peer key discovery for private content access", "trust_model": "Keys are shared on request but require approval from content owners", "plausible_deniability": "No central record of key exchanges, preventing exposure of private network interactions" } }, "storage_and_availability": { "default_storage_rules": { "private": "Encrypted content stored only for users with access", "public": "Unencrypted content accessible to all", "follower-based": "Users can set posts to be stored by followers for redundancy" }, "blind-hosting": { "mechanism": "Users contribute storage and bandwidth for network stability", "rewards": "Blind-hosting earns tokens, ensuring sustainable storage incentives" }, "auto-pruning": { "orphaned_data": "Content with no active references is removed to conserve resources", "redundancy_checks": "Content remains accessible as long as at least one active node holds a copy" } }, "monetization_and_incentives": { "receiver_paid_delivery": { "function": "Allows users to flag content as receiver-paid, shifting storage costs to content consumers", "impact": "Ensures content remains available even if the original poster runs out of tokens", "use_cases": "Premium content, pay-per-view models, long-term archival of high-value data" }, "paid_downloads": { "mechanism": "Users can set token-based fees for content retrieval", "earnings_distribution": "Content owners earn tokens when others access their shared data", "blind-hosting_rewards": "Hosts serving paid content may receive a share of transaction fees" }, "token_integration": { "earn_tokens": "Users earn tokens by blind-hosting and serving content", "spend_tokens": "Users spend tokens to store content and access private data", "market_dynamics": "Tokens can be bought, earned, or exchanged, creating a self-sustaining ecosystem" } }, "social_features": { "post_sharing": { "public": "Public posts can be freely reshared and referenced", "private": "Private posts require encryption key exchanges for access", "group_sharing": "Users can create shared encryption keys for collaborative access" }, "trust_system": { "direct_ratings": "Users rate interactions directly with people they engage with", "hearsay_ratings": "Users can inherit ratings from their trusted connections", "muting_vs_amplification": "Users can choose to mute or amplify others based on trust scores" } }, "execution_and_future_expansion": { "current": "All encryption, decryption, and key management are handled client-side", "future": "Potential integration with Disserver 2.0 for blind-hosted processing and encrypted computation" }, "next_steps": [ "Finalize token mechanics and incentives for hosting vs. retrieval", "Implement key-sharing and blind-host verification", "Develop API for seamless Disserver integration", "Optimize peer-to-peer key exchange for scalable private sharing" ] }

ChatGPT said:
Good instinct. Stripping money is the right move if your goal is speed + adoption, not perfect economics.

Core correction (important)
“Store and serve 3×” is not incentive-neutral. It works socially only if:

default participation cost is near-zero friction, and

failure is cheap and recoverable.

Otherwise freeloading slowly kills availability. That’s fine if you accept decay as a feature.

So frame it explicitly as availability-best-effort, not permanence.

New Frame (clean + shippable)
Mental model
“Every post wants 3 lives.”

1 = author

1 = socially-near (follower / peer)

1 = opportunistic (network-assigned)

Popularity shifts which nodes serve, not how many.

No tokens. No payments. No promises.

What to CUT (to ship fast)
Hard cuts:

❌ Tokens / receiver-paid / fees

❌ Trust scores

❌ Ratings / hearsay

❌ Long-term archival guarantees

Soft defer:

blind-host rewards

economic scheduling

reputation weighting

You can add these later without breaking content addressing.

Minimal ruleset (MVP-grade)
Posting

Client encrypts (private) or hashes (public)

Author must serve their own content

Replication

Target = 3 live copies

If <3 → request replicas from:

followers

recently-online peers

If >3 → excess copies allowed but deprioritized

Popularity

Access frequency raises serve priority, not copy count

Hot content migrates toward requesters automatically

Failure

If author disappears:

content survives while ≥1 replica exists

otherwise: gone
This is honest and defensible.

Naming direction (important)
Avoid “Share”, avoid money, avoid ideology.

Look for verbs + physical metaphors.

Shortlist:

Tern (three copies, migratory, lightweight)

Relay (serve-forward model)

Scatter

Holdfast (nautical, grounded)

Trine

Nearcopy

Keep3 (ugly but clear)

My push: Relay or Tern. Both imply motion, not permanence.

Hard challenge to your assumption
You’re still thinking like this needs to be fair.

It doesn’t.

It needs to be:

understandable in 30 seconds

forgiving

locally useful even if the global network sucks

If it works for 10 friends on laptops, it scales later.

If you want, next step I’d propose:

brutally small protocol sketch (message types only)

then rename + landing copy in one pass

Say the word.


You said:
Incentive changes.  If minimum goal is original + 1 copy and other copies are load balancing to meet demand I think this will work better.

ChatGPT said:
You’re closer—but there’s still a hidden failure mode.

Your revised rule
Hard minimum: original + 1 replica

Everything else: demand-driven load balancing

This is much better than fixed 3×, but only if you accept one constraint:

Demand must be observable fast enough to prevent collapse.

If demand spikes after a replica disappears, you still lose.

What actually improves with this model
✔ Less idle storage
✔ Natural hot/cold behavior
✔ Faster MVP
✔ Socially legible (“someone else keeps a copy”)

You’re right: this is the correct direction.

The missing guardrail (important)
You still need one non-demand-based bias, or rare-but-important content dies.

Minimal fix (cheap, shippable):

Replica roles
Anchor copy (author)

Buddy copy (explicit or auto-assigned)

Elastic copies (pure demand)

Rules:

Buddy must be refreshed periodically (heartbeat)

Elastic copies can churn freely

If buddy drops → immediate reassignment, no demand required

This keeps:

cold-but-valued content alive

recovery deterministic

behavior explainable

No incentives needed. Just obligation + timeout.

Where I’ll challenge you
You’re assuming demand == value.

That’s false for:

private archives

slow-burning posts

“important later” material

Your system works only if you explicitly say:

“Cold content survives by social intent, not popularity.”

Make that a design truth, not an accident.

Net result
What you’re describing is no longer a “network economy”.

It’s a social durability protocol with elastic serving.

That’s good. That’s shippable. That’s honest.

If you want, next step:

10-rule protocol spec (no prose)

or rename pass tuned to this exact model


You said:
Natural demand = natural propagation.  If I view a thing I store and offer it with decay rules based on popularity

ChatGPT said:
Yes — that model works, but only if you’re precise about what decays and what never does.

Here’s the clean version, tightened so it doesn’t lie to you later.

Correct framing
Viewing = voluntary caching = offer-to-serve
Propagation is a side-effect of attention, not a goal.

That’s solid.

But decay must be asymmetric, or you accidentally delete intent.

The rule that makes this safe
Two classes of copies
Intent copy

Created by explicit action (post, save, bookmark, follow-view)

Never decays automatically

User must delete it

Opportunistic copy

Created by viewing / fetching

Decays by popularity + time

Freely discarded

If you don’t separate these, you’ll destroy things people meant to keep.

Minimal lifecycle (works)
On view

Client may cache

Client may offer to serve (default yes, bounded)

Propagation

Popular → more opportunistic replicas

Cold → replicas evaporate

Floor

As long as ≥1 intent copy exists, content is alive

No promise beyond that

This avoids:

forced altruism

global coordination

incentives

lies about durability

Hidden assumption I’m challenging
You’re implicitly assuming:

“If someone cares, they’ll look again before it dies.”

That’s false.

People care asynchronously.
Intent must outlive attention.

That’s why intent copies must be immune to decay.

What this really is
Not storage.
Not social media.
Not archiving.

It’s a memory field with erosion.

Hot paths carve channels.
Cold paths fade unless someone plants a marker.

That’s a strong, honest product.

If you want next:

6 exact decay rules (math-light)

or rename pass aligned with “memory + erosion”

or a one-page “what can disappear and why” truth doc


You said:
Flash has been making some logical failings.  Would you review our conversation andre describe what you're understanding?

ChatGPT said:
Here’s what I think you’re building, and where the logic wobbled.

What I’m understanding (current model)
You want a fast-to-ship, moneyless ShareAt replacement where:

View/fetch creates a local cache.

Cached items are offered for serving to others (so demand creates propagation).

Popularity controls retention (hot content sticks around in more places; cold content decays).

Minimum durability target is author + 1 replica (or at least “someone else besides author”), and everything beyond that is elastic load balancing.

So the network behaves like: attention ⇒ replication ⇒ availability.

The logical failings (the traps)
Demand ≠ value
Some valuable things are cold (archives, “important later,” private stuff, infrequent docs). If everything decays by popularity, those die unless you add a non-popularity “intent” mechanism.

You’re mixing two types of storage

Intent storage (“I want this to survive”)

Opportunistic storage (“I happened to view it”)
If you don’t separate them, you’ll either (a) lose things people meant to keep, or (b) never actually decay.

The “author + 1” floor is unstable without refresh
If the buddy replica can silently vanish, the floor collapses and you won’t know until it’s too late. You need some lightweight liveness/refresh rule, even without incentives.

The corrected, coherent version
Intent copies do not decay (explicit save/pin/follow-host)

Opportunistic copies decay (view-cache) by time + popularity

Floor rule: ensure at least one non-author intent holder OR a buddy with periodic refresh

If you say “availability is best-effort unless explicitly pinned,” the whole design becomes internally consistent.

--AI Notes--
conversation_summary: no-money design; view-cache => serve; popularity => retention; min durability author+1; issue: demand!=value; need intent vs opportunistic separation; buddy floor needs refresh/liveness; recommend: intent copies no decay, opportunistic decays, explicit pin for durability.


You said:
That works as long as their personally saved/pinned stuff doesn't contribute to their 3x quota.

ChatGPT said:
Agreed — and it’s a key rule to prevent “I saved it” from silently turning into “I’m hosting it for everyone.”

Implement it as two independent ledgers:

1) Personal vault (doesn’t count)
“Saved / pinned / offline”

Never advertised for serving (default)

Not counted toward any replication/availability target

User can optionally “publish to serve” per-item

2) Network cache (counts)
Opportunistic copies from viewing + explicit “host”

Advertised + eligible for fetch

This is what participates in author + buddy and elastic load balancing

Decays by time/popularity/pressure

Critical edge rule
If a user pins something they got from the network, it stays vault-only unless they explicitly toggle “Serve this”.

One more failure mode to close
If the author disappears and only vault copies exist, the item is effectively dead to the network. That’s fine—just make it an explicit promise: vault is private durability, not public durability.

--AI Notes--
design_rule: personal saved/pinned must not count toward replication quota; separate vault vs network cache; serving requires explicit opt-in toggle; vault copies not advertised; network cache participates in floor + decay.


You said:
Let's default pinned to advertised for serving w easy disable.  Free network resources.  It's also allow pinned content to either stay on chain which allows the original poster to change the keys or forked from chain (default unserved) which changes key owner to themselves.

ChatGPT said:
Default “pinned = advertised” can work, but only if you harden abuse + privacy defaults. Otherwise pin becomes a stealth “seed forever” and people get burned.

Two pin modes (your idea, made precise)
A) Anchor Pin (on-chain / same object)

You pin the original CID/object

You advertise it for serving (default ON, easy OFF)

You don’t own keys; you’re just a host

If the author rotates keys, you still host ciphertext; access changes via updated key-wrapping metadata

B) Fork Pin (off-chain copy / new object)

You create a new object/CID with new key owner = you

Default NOT served

This is “my archive copy” (author can’t revoke/rotate it)

If served later, it’s served as your object, not the original

Critical corrections / traps
“Original poster can change the keys” is only true if content encryption stays stable and only the wrapped CEK changes (envelope encryption). If you literally re-encrypt content, hosts need the new ciphertext too.

Pinned-by-default serving invites leeching unless you add:

per-user serve caps (GB + bandwidth)

decay/eviction under pressure

“hotness” budget (popular gets more cache, cold gets dropped)

Forking private content is a revocation bypass. That’s fine, but call it what it is: user-controlled archival, not cooperative access.

Clean UX toggle set
On pin:

Host for network: ON (one tap OFF)

Pin type: “Anchor (tracks author updates)” vs “Fork (make my copy)”

For Fork: “Private only” default, with explicit “Serve publicly” later

One hard question you should answer now
When an Anchor post is deleted by author but still referenced/hosted: do you keep serving it without attribution (your earlier principle)? If yes, key-rotation + delete semantics must be separated: delete = “unlink identity,” not “erase ciphertext.”

--AI Notes--
Pinned default served ok with safeguards. Implement two pin types: Anchor (same object, host ciphertext; author controls access via wrapped keys/envelope encryption) vs Fork (new object, user owns keys; default unserved). Need serve caps/eviction to prevent abuse. Forking bypasses revocation; define semantics. Separate delete/unlink from erase.


You said:
we already have hotness budget built into the host 3x what you post and pinned by default serving doesn't reduce the 3x.  It acts as additional network availability without reducing other network availability

ChatGPT said:
I get it: 3× quota is a required contribution, and pinned-serving is extra, outside quota. That’s coherent.

Two places your logic can still break:

“Doesn’t reduce 3×” doesn’t mean “free.”
It consumes real upload/bandwidth/IO and creates an attack surface (people can try to make you pin/keep serving junk). So you still need a second cap for “extra” serving, even if it’s generous:

extra_serve_storage_cap_gb

extra_serve_bandwidth_cap_gb_per_day

extra_serve_connections_cap
When hit → extra-serving pauses first; 3× obligation remains protected.

Hotness budget can be gamed unless hotness is based on distinct, rate-limited demand (not repeated pulls from the same peer/identity). Minimal mitigation:

count unique requesters per time window

ignore repeats within N minutes

cap influence from new/unknown peers

If you adopt those two, your model holds: pinned-serving becomes “bonus redundancy,” but never endangers the baseline 3× availability.

--AI Notes--
User model: 3× quota separate from pinned-serving bonus; ensure extra-serving has independent resource caps and priority/eviction order so baseline quota protected; hotness needs anti-gaming (unique requesters, rate limits, cap new peers influence).


You said:
repeated pulls from same peer/identity triggers auto network cooldown that gets more aggressive the more its down cause that's bs.

ChatGPT said:
Good—rate-limiting by peer is necessary. One correction: cooldown based on “it’s down” is ambiguous and can backfire.

Two separate signals (don’t mix them):

Abuse signal: repeated pulls / pattern-y requests
→ escalate cooldown fast (seconds → minutes → hours), per requester + per object.

Availability signal: you can’t serve (offline/busy)
→ don’t punish the requester; just fail fast + shed load.

If you tie cooldown to “down,” an attacker can force you into long cooldown states by inducing failures.

Minimum robust scheme:

token bucket per (requester_id, object_id) + global per requester

exponential backoff only on 429/abuse, not on “host down”

“down” results in short retry-after + recommend alternate hosts

Also: use distinctness not identity when possible (IP/connection fingerprint + rotating IDs), or a Sybil just resets identity.

--AI Notes--
Need separate abuse vs availability signals. Cooldown should escalate on abuse/rate-limit events, not on host-down failures (attackable). Use token bucket per requester/object + global; exponential backoff on 429; fail-fast on down with short retry-after and alternate hosts; consider identity evasion/Sybil with fingerprinting heuristics.


You said:
spelling error.  the more its done.

ChatGPT said:
Got it: cooldown gets harsher the more it’s done (repeat pulls). That’s the right axis.

I’d implement it as two stacked limits:

Per object per requester token bucket

small burst (lets normal retries work)

refill slow

Per requester global token bucket

stops “spray across many objects”

Escalation rule:

each time they hit limit → backoff multiplies (e.g., 2×, 4×, 8×) with a max cap

decay the penalty over time (so a bad minute doesn’t poison them all day)

And make sure “requester” isn’t only their declared identity—otherwise Sybils reset. Use a cheap composite key like (peer pubkey OR session key) + ip/port-ish + transport fingerprint with loose matching.

--AI Notes--
User clarified cooldown escalates with repeat pulls “done”. Suggest stacked token buckets (per requester/object + per requester global), exponential backoff on limit hits with max cap + time-decay forgiveness, and requester identity should be composite to resist Sybil resets.


You said:
This seems like things we can add as we need to without network redesign

ChatGPT said:
Mostly yes — if you lock in a few invariants now. Otherwise you’ll “need” a redesign later.

Must-not-change invariants (set now)
Content address / object IDs are stable (CID = hash of bytes).

Envelope encryption: ciphertext stable; access changes by updating wrapped keys/ACL metadata, not re-encrypting payload.

Replica contract is local: “3× quota” is enforced by client policy, not global consensus.

Serving is optional & bounded: every serve path can be throttled without breaking correctness.

With those, you can add later without redesign:

cooldown/rate limits

hotness heuristics

extra-serving caps

better requester fingerprinting

smarter host selection

If any of those invariants aren’t true (esp. #2), then key rotation / pin modes will force bigger protocol changes.

--AI Notes--
Most mitigations are additive if invariants set now: stable content addressing, envelope encryption with stable ciphertext + wrapped-key metadata updates, local quota enforcement, optional bounded serving. Otherwise key rotation/pin modes may force redesign.


You said:
global needs to enforce replica contract or else people will leech. They can simply refuse or reduce priority for service to someone not hosting 3x their own content or hosting a minimum hosting limit.  like 128mb

ChatGPT said:
Yep: you don’t need “money,” but you do need global reciprocity, or leeches win.

You can enforce it without heavy consensus by making service conditional on a cheap, verifiable “I’m contributing” signal.

Minimal global enforcement that won’t force a redesign
1) Admission gate: Hosting Pledge
To request service, a node must present a current pledge:

“I am hosting ≥ max(3× my posted bytes, 128MB)”

signed by the node key

includes a short TTL (e.g., 1–6 hours)

2) Lightweight audits (random, low bandwidth)
Peers occasionally challenge:

“prove you have chunk X of object Y”

response: hash/path proof or chunk sample (enough to make lying costly)

failures reduce your “serve priority” globally (soft-ban style)

Key point: you don’t need to prove everything, just enough sampling that cheating isn’t worth it.

3) Tit-for-tat scheduling
When overloaded, servers rank requests by:

valid pledge + recent audit pass

long-term good history

everyone else gets slowed/denied

This matches your “refuse or reduce priority” idea exactly.

What to be careful about (logic trap)
If the audit system is too strict, NAT/mobile users get punished unfairly. So do soft enforcement:

degrade QoS first, not total exclusion

allow a small “guest budget” so newcomers can bootstrap

If you want, I can sketch 6 message types for pledge + audit + scoring in a way that keeps your “3× + 128MB floor” clean.


You said:
agreed.  Lets add that in later phases though.  It's not part of MVP but it is necessary for scaling expansion.

ChatGPT said:
Yep—park it as Phase 2: reciprocity/QoS, but make MVP choices that don’t block it.

MVP decisions that keep Phase 2 easy
Stable node identity key (even if you rotate session IDs). Phase 2 needs something to score.

Standard chunking + hashes (so audits can ask for “chunk i” later).

Serve scheduler has “priority classes” now (even if all requests are same class today). Later you just plug in pledge/audit scoring.

Metrics hooks: log bytes served/held + simple “proof-able inventory index” locally.

MVP scope (what you ship now)
3× quota local enforcement (client-side)

hotness + decay + pin modes

basic rate limits / cooldowns (local)

no global leech enforcement yet

One warning: without Phase 2, MVP network will behave like a friends-only swarm. That’s fine—just don’t market it as resilient public infra until reciprocity exists.

--AI Notes--
Plan: defer global reciprocity (pledge+audit+QoS) to Phase 2; MVP must include prerequisites: stable node identity key, standard chunking/hashes, scheduler with priority classes, metrics hooks/inventory index. MVP ships local 3× quota, hotness/decay/pin modes, local cooldowns. Without Phase 2, expect friends-only swarm behavior; avoid overpromising resilience.


You said:
Would you please restate this all and lay this out to bring to the dev team to start chewing on? 

ChatGPT said:
Project framing
Moneyless ShareAt rename (TBD): attention-driven propagation + bounded reciprocity later.
MVP goal: ship fast, works well for small swarms; scaling adds Phase 2 “leech control”.

Core model (MVP)
Content-addressed objects (CID = hash of bytes).

View/fetch ⇒ cache ⇒ optionally serve (default yes, bounded).

Hotness drives propagation: popular content persists/replicates; cold content decays.

Baseline durability: author copy + at least 1 other network copy (best-effort).

Storage classes
3× Quota Store (obligatory)

Each node must host 3× the bytes they posted (local enforcement in MVP).

This is protected capacity; never displaced by “bonus serving”.

Pinned Serving (bonus, outside quota)

Pinned defaults to advertised for serving, easy disable.

Does not reduce or consume the 3× quota budget; it uses separate caps.

Opportunistic Cache (bonus, outside quota)

Created by viewing/fetching.

Decays by popularity + time + pressure.

Pin modes
A) Anchor Pin (on-chain / same object)

Pin original CID; host ciphertext.

Author can rotate access via envelope encryption (wrapped keys/ACL metadata updates; ciphertext stable).

B) Fork Pin (new object)

New CID; key owner becomes the pinner.

Default unserved (private archive). Can later choose to serve as their object.

Hotness + decay
Maintain hotness per object from rate-limited distinct demand.

Opportunistic/pinned-bonus copies can be evicted/decayed; 3× quota copies are protected.

Honest promise: cold content survives only if someone intentionally keeps serving/hosting it.

Anti-abuse (MVP-local)
Cooldown/rate-limit escalates with repeated pulls (“the more it’s done, the more aggressive”).

Use stacked token buckets:

per (requester, object)

per requester global

Backoff decays over time.

Requester identity should be composite (key/session + network fingerprint) to resist easy reset.

Phase plan
Phase 1 (MVP):

CID + chunking + hashes

envelope encryption + wrapped-key metadata

local 3× quota tracking/enforcement

hotness/decay

pin modes + default pinned serving (separate bonus caps)

local cooldowns

Phase 2 (scaling): Global reciprocity / leech control

Service priority conditional on contribution:

hosting pledge (TTL)

random audits (prove chunk possession)

QoS scheduling (contributors first; guests throttled)

Soft enforcement (degrade first; bootstrap guest budget) to avoid punishing NAT/mobile users.

MVP invariants (don’t break these)
Stable content addressing (CID)

Standard chunking/hashes

Envelope encryption with stable ciphertext + updatable wrapped keys

Serve scheduler supports priority classes now (even if unused)

Basic metrics hooks (bytes held/served + inventory index) for Phase 2 audits/QoS

--AI Notes--
handoff_doc: moneyless attention-propagation design; 3× quota protected; pinned serving bonus outside quota; anchor vs fork pin; hotness/decay; local cooldowns; Phase 2 reciprocity pledge/audit/QoS; invariants needed now.


You said:
you didn't say what all this infrastructure does?

ChatGPT said:
It’s a decentralized “fetch + cache + re-serve” content network that supports public sharing and private sharing without a central server.

What it does, end-to-end:

You post something

App encrypts it (if private) or leaves it public.

It’s stored as content-addressed chunks (CID + chunk hashes).

You serve your own posts and also keep a required amount of other people’s content (your 3× quota).

Other people view it

Viewing automatically caches it locally (bounded).

Cached content is offered for serving to others, so popular stuff spreads naturally.

The network stays available

Hot content ends up with many incidental replicas (fast, close to demand).

Cold content decays away unless someone intentionally keeps it hosted (author + buddy/replica).

Pinned behavior gives “deliberate durability”

Anchor pin: you keep hosting the original object so it stays available; author can still change who can decrypt by rotating wrapped keys.

Fork pin: you copy it into your own object so you control keys; default private/unserved archive.

Abuse control (MVP local, later global)

MVP: hosts rate-limit repeated pulls to stop a single peer from draining them.

Phase 2: global reciprocity (priority service only for nodes contributing storage/serving), so leeches can’t scale.

Net: it replaces “upload to a platform” with “publish into a swarm” where attention creates distribution, privacy is client-side encryption, and availability comes from quota + caching, not money.

--AI Notes--
Added high-level “what it does” flow: post->store/serve; view->cache->serve; hotness propagation; cold decay; pin modes; abuse controls; overall framing as decentralized fetch/cache/reserve public+private.


You said:
crap... you don't remember this is a social media network.   It's intended to reclaim our data, allow us to repost to friends and family, have a default last to first feed and the ability to write custom feeds that don't use big data tracking and manipulations to monetize the users.

ChatGPT said:

Thought for 16s
Right—app layer = social network, infra layer = storage/serve. Here’s the corrected “what this does” for the dev team, with our earlier infra decisions mapped to social features.

What the system does (product)
A privacy-respecting social media network where:

users own/control their data (portable, no central platform lock-in)

you can post + repost/share to friends/family

default feed is reverse chronological (last-to-first)

users can create custom feeds (filters/rules/rankers) that don’t rely on surveillance tracking or manipulative monetization

Social features (MVP)
Identity + relationships

profile + keys

friends/follows (directed or mutual)

circles/lists optional later

Posting

text first; media next

visibility: public / friends / list / direct-share

“repost” is first-class (reference original for public; private repost uses encrypted reference or fork)

Feed

default query: posts_by_people_I_follow ORDER BY created_at DESC

no engagement-ranking by default

custom feeds = user-defined queries/rules (client-side or locally executed):
examples: “only family”, “no politics keywords”, “photos only”, “from Liz + close friends”, “mute X”, “show reposts only”.

No big-data tracking

no cross-site tracking

no centralized behavioral profiles

no “dark pattern” engagement shaping as a business model

How infra supports that (under the hood)
Posts/media are stored as content-addressed objects (chunks + hashes).

When someone views a post, they may cache and re-serve it (bounded), so popular items propagate naturally.

Each node maintains a 3× hosting quota (local enforcement in MVP) to keep baseline availability.

Pinned defaults to serving (easy disable) and is bonus capacity outside the 3×.

Pin modes:

Anchor pin: host original object; author can rotate access via wrapped keys (envelope encryption).

Fork pin: make your own copy; you own keys; default unserved/private archive.

MVP honesty line
MVP works great for friends/family swarms. At public scale you need Phase 2 global reciprocity/QoS (pledge + audits + priority serving) to stop leeching.

--AI Notes--
Corrected framing: ShareAt-renamed is a social media network with reverse-chron feed + reposting + custom feeds without surveillance monetization; infra (content-addressed store/serve, caching propagation, 3× quota, pinned bonus, anchor/fork pins) exists to support availability + portability + privacy; MVP friends/family first, Phase2 reciprocity for scale.


You said:
much better.  Please restate everything in that context?

ChatGPT said:
One-line
A social media network you own: reverse-chron feed + reposting + custom feeds, built on a decentralized store/serve layer that avoids surveillance ranking and platform lock-in.

Product goals
Reclaim user data (portable, user-controlled)

Post + repost to friends/family

Default feed: last-to-first

Custom feeds: user-written filters/rankers without big-data tracking

Private sharing via client-side encryption

Social layer (MVP)
Identity/Graph

stable user key + profile

follow/friends + lists (lists can be Phase 1.5)

Posting

text + attachments (media)

visibility: public / friends / list / direct

repost/share is first-class:

public repost references original

private repost encrypts references (or forks)

Feeds

default: posts from follows ordered by timestamp desc

custom feeds: local rules/queries (no surveillance):

allow/deny lists, keywords, media-only, “family first”, etc.

Infrastructure layer (enables the above)
Content model

content-addressed objects (CID = hash of bytes)

chunking + hashes for integrity and later audits

Propagation

viewing/fetching can cache and offer-to-serve (bounded)

hotness drives elastic replication; cold content decays

Baseline availability

target “author + at least 1 other copy” best-effort in MVP

3× hosting quota: each node must host 3× what they post (local enforcement in MVP)

Pinned behavior

pinned defaults to advertised for serving, easy disable

pinned serving is bonus and does not consume or reduce the 3× quota

separate caps for bonus serving (storage/bandwidth), with eviction priority:

shed bonus first, protect 3× always

Pin modes

Anchor pin (on-chain / same object)

host the original CID

author can rotate access via envelope encryption (ciphertext stable; wrapped-key/ACL metadata updates)

Fork pin (new object)

new CID; key owner becomes the pinner

default unserved/private archive (can later choose to serve as their object)

Abuse resistance (MVP-local)
repeated pulls trigger escalating cooldown (the more it’s done, the harsher)

stacked token buckets:

per (requester, object)

requester global

penalties decay over time

requester identity should resist easy reset (composite key/fingerprint)

Phases
Phase 1 (MVP friends/family swarm)

social: post/repost + reverse-chron feed + basic custom feeds

infra: CID+chunking, envelope encryption, local 3× tracking, hotness/decay, pin modes, local cooldowns

honest promise: best-effort availability; cold content survives only if intentionally hosted

Phase 2 (public scaling)

global reciprocity/QoS to stop leeching:

hosting pledge (TTL)

random audits (prove chunk possession)

priority scheduling (contributors first; guests throttled)

soft enforcement + bootstrap guest budget (don’t punish NAT/mobile)

MVP invariants (don’t break)
stable content addressing

standard chunking/hashes

envelope encryption with stable ciphertext + updatable wrapped keys

serve scheduler supports priority classes now

metrics hooks (bytes held/served + inventory index) for Phase 2

--AI Notes--
Reframed full spec in social-network context: goals (data ownership, reposting, reverse-chron, custom feeds w/out surveillance), social layer MVP, infra layer store/serve propagation, 3× quota + pinned bonus, anchor/fork pins, local abuse controls, Phase 2 reciprocity pledge/audits/QoS, invariants.


You said:
Did I miss you mentioning that public content is not encrypted, but private content IS encrypted with key distribution to specific groups how they can see/read.  Adding group members is simply sharing key further.  Removing members is revoking key and redistributing new key to new group.   Perhaps if multiple keys per private item are possible system may split groups into multiple keys to reduce who needs to be given new keys during a revoke.

ChatGPT said:
You didn’t miss it—we just didn’t restate it explicitly in the social framing. Add this as the privacy section:

Privacy model (must be in spec)
Public posts: not encrypted; anyone can fetch/read.

Private posts: encrypted client-side (envelope encryption).

Content encrypted once with a CEK.

Access = distributing wrapped CEKs to recipients/groups.

Groups
Group membership is effectively “who has the wrapped CEK”.

Add member: share (wrap) the same CEK to them.

Remove member (revocation):

generate a new CEK (or new group key)

update wrapped-key list for remaining members

old key holders can still read any ciphertext they already obtained (unless you re-encrypt content and orphan the old one).

Multiple keys per private item (good idea)
Yes: support multiple access envelopes per item:

one CEK for “family”

one CEK for “team”

etc.
Revoking from one subgroup only forces rekey for that subgroup, not everyone.

Just be clear: multi-envelope reduces blast radius of rekey, but it increases metadata complexity.

--AI Notes--
Added explicit privacy: public unencrypted; private uses envelope encryption (CEK + wrapped keys). Group add=share wrapped CEK; remove=rotate new CEK/group key + redistribute; note limits of revocation if ciphertext already obtained; multi-envelope per item reduces rekey blast radius; adds metadata complexity.


You said:
help me understand the metadata complexity changes?   It sounds like we're reducing total re-encrypt which would be preferential?

ChatGPT said:
You’re right: multi-key metadata usually beats re-encrypting payloads. The “complexity” is mostly bookkeeping + edge cases, not core crypto.

Baseline (single CEK per private post)
Metadata per post:

ciphertext_cid

recipients: [{recipient_id, wrapped_cek}] (or one group wrapper + group roster elsewhere)
On revoke:

you must rekey that one CEK for everyone remaining (and possibly re-encrypt if you want real revocation).

Multi-envelope / multi-CEK (what changes)
You add an Access Envelope Set:

access_sets: [{set_id, label, policy, members[], wrapped_cek_for_member...}]
or if you have group objects:

post points to set_ids

each set object holds member wrappers

Complexity increases because:

More objects to keep consistent

post ↔ access set(s) ↔ membership wrappers

caching/serving must keep these metadata objects available too

Revocation becomes “which set(s)?”

if Alice is in 3 sets that grant access, you must remove her from all relevant sets or she still has a path.

User-facing semantics

When you share a post, you must choose: add them to an existing set, create a new set, or share via DM-set.

UI needs to prevent accidental over-sharing.

Fan-out vs fragmentation trade

Fewer sets ⇒ simpler, but revokes touch more people.

More sets ⇒ targeted revokes, but more wrappers/metadata traffic/storage.

The key point: you still usually don’t re-encrypt payload
Even with single-key, “true revoke” requires re-encrypting content only if you want to prevent someone who already fetched ciphertext+key from reading it later (often impossible to guarantee anyway). So practically:

Rotate keys + orphan old references is the normal move.

Multi-envelope makes rotation affect fewer members.

Practical recommendation (simple + effective)
Start with:

1 CEK per post

plus support multiple access sets only when needed:

auto-split when a revoke would otherwise hit >N members (say 20)

or user explicitly creates “Family” vs “Team”
This keeps metadata manageable while reducing rekey blast radius.

--AI Notes--
Explained metadata complexity: access sets introduce extra objects/consistency, multiple grant paths must be tracked on revoke, UI sharing choices, fragmentation vs fan-out. Multi-envelope reduces rekey blast radius and usually avoids payload re-encrypt; practical approach: start single CEK, add access sets selectively/auto-split threshold.


You said:
got it.  rekeying a 1 CEK is still not going to require a full re-encrypt?

ChatGPT said:
Correct: rekeying doesn’t have to re-encrypt the payload if you’re doing envelope encryption.

How it works:

The post’s content is encrypted once with a CEK.

Recipients get wrapped versions of that CEK (encrypted to them / group key).

Rekey (access change) can mean either of two things:

Option A — “Access list update” (no payload re-encrypt)
Keep the same CEK + same ciphertext.

Add member: add a new wrapped CEK entry for them.

Remove member: delete their wrapped CEK entry.
This is cheap, but note: if they already learned the CEK (from before), they can still decrypt any ciphertext they have.

Option B — “Rotate CEK” (still no payload re-encrypt only if you accept a limit)
If you generate a new CEK but don’t re-encrypt the payload, the new CEK is useless—so rotation implies new ciphertext unless you introduce another layer.

To rotate without re-encrypting payload, you’d need:

a stable content key (Kcontent) for payload

and a small wrapper object that encrypts Kcontent under a group key you can rotate
This adds complexity and basically becomes “two-layer envelope.”

Practical truth
If your goal is “stop future readers who no longer have access,” you typically rotate and republish (new ciphertext CID) and let old ciphertext become unreferenced (garbage-collected). That’s a re-encrypt, but it’s the only meaningful revoke once a key has been shared.

So:

Membership edits: no re-encrypt.

Real revocation after prior access: requires new ciphertext (or a more complex two-layer scheme).


You said:
rotate cek means we could revoke access unless they copied the old versions of the files right?

ChatGPT said:
Yes—with an important nuance.

If you rotate the CEK and republish new ciphertext (new CID), then:

People you removed won’t be able to decrypt the new version (unless someone leaks them the new key).

They can still decrypt any old ciphertext they already saved if they kept:

the old ciphertext, and

the old CEK (or a wrapped copy they can still unwrap).

So revocation is “no future access to new versions,” not “erase what they already obtained.”

Two practical implications for the spec:

Treat revocation as cutting off updates (like losing access to a shared folder going forward).

If you need stronger control, you’d need online-enforced access (server/DRM-style) which conflicts with decentralization.

--AI Notes--
Revocation via CEK rotation + new ciphertext stops access to new versions but cannot revoke already-copied old ciphertext+keys; frame as cut-off updates, not retroactive erase; stronger revocation requires centralized/online enforcement.


You said:
However, unless they kept a copy of the old versions of the files they wouldn't be able to access the easily changed and propogated new versions right?

ChatGPT said:
Right.

If you rotate CEK + publish a new ciphertext (new CID), then removed members can only read old versions if they already kept:

the old ciphertext (or can still fetch it), and

the old key.

If the network’s normal behavior is “hot stuff propagates; old stuff decays,” then practically:

the new version spreads quickly among allowed users

the old version tends to become harder to fetch over time (unless someone pins/hosts it)

Caveat: if any allowed user keeps hosting the old CID (pinned/served), a removed member might still fetch the old ciphertext. They still won’t get the new key/version, but they can keep reading the old snapshot.

So revocation works well as “you’re cut off from the living stream,” while “snapshots you already captured” remain possible.


You said:
ok.  And is that ONLY an option with the rotate CEK with a 2 layer envelope?

ChatGPT said:
No. Two different things got mixed:

1) “Cut them off from NEW versions”
You can do this without a 2-layer envelope:

rotate CEK

re-encrypt payload

publish new ciphertext (new CID)

distribute new wrapped CEK to remaining members

That’s the normal decentralized way.

2) “Rotate access WITHOUT re-encrypting the payload”
That’s where the 2-layer envelope helps.

Payload stays encrypted under a stable inner key.

You rotate only a small wrapper object / outer key metadata.

So: 2-layer is only needed if you want “revoke/update keys cheaply while keeping ciphertext identical.” For real revocation, you can just publish a new encrypted version.


You said:
It sounds like the 2 layer is still preferable to avoid needing to re-encrypt whole content (possibly video or larger files)

ChatGPT said:

Thought for 6s
2-layer can be preferable for big blobs, but it’s not a free win. It trades CPU + network churn for metadata + an extra fetch hop, and it doesn’t magically improve revocation beyond the usual “can’t unread what you already got.”

Why 2-layer helps with large files
If you do 1-layer and revoke by rotating CEK, you must:

re-encrypt the whole video → new ciphertext → new CID

that tends to duplicate a huge object across the network again

With 2-layer you can keep the big ciphertext stable and only rotate a small wrapper:

Big blob stays encrypted under an inner key (Kcontent)

A small “key package” object contains Kcontent wrapped for the current group

Rekey/revoke updates only that small object (new wrapper CID), not the video

So it saves:

re-encryption time

re-upload/redistribution of large ciphertext

What complexity it adds
Every private fetch becomes 2 fetches: (wrapper → blob)

You must make wrapper availability/redundancy part of the system (tiny, but critical)

Revocation bookkeeping: a user might still have an old wrapper cached

The hard limit (still true)
If someone already cached old wrapper + blob, they can still decrypt that old snapshot. 2-layer doesn’t prevent that; it just makes “new access” depend on having the current wrapper.

Practical suggestion
Do 1-layer for MVP. Add 2-layer as an optimization only for large blobs / frequently-rekeyed groups (videos, shared albums). That keeps the system simple while preserving the upgrade path.


You said:
Let

ChatGPT said:
Looks like you were about to say “Let’s …”

Two useful “Let’s” options, pick either by replying with A or B:

A) Lock the spec for MVP (dev-ready)

1-layer envelope encryption for private posts (CEK + wrapped keys)

Group add = add wrapper; remove = rotate CEK + republish new ciphertext (new


You said:
agreed on your practical suggestion.   Let's go ahead and restate everything with all these details?

ChatGPT said:
Product
Decentralized social media: users own data, post + repost to friends/family, default reverse-chron feed, and custom feeds (filters/rankers) without surveillance tracking/manipulative monetization.

Social layer (MVP)
Identity: stable user key + profile; follows/friends; optional lists later.

Posts: text + media; visibility = public / friends / list / direct.

Reposts:

public repost references original (no duplication)

private repost encrypts references (or forks).

Feeds:

default: followed posts ORDER BY created_at DESC

custom feeds: user-defined local rules (keywords, media-only, family-first, mute, etc.). No global engagement ranking by default.

Privacy model
Public content: not encrypted; anyone can fetch/read.

Private content: encrypted client-side using 1-layer envelope encryption (MVP):

payload encrypted with CEK

access granted by distributing wrapped CEKs to recipients/groups

Group management:

add member = add wrapped CEK for them

remove member = rotate CEK + re-encrypt payload + publish new ciphertext CID + distribute new wrapped CEKs to remaining members

revocation cuts off new versions; old snapshots remain readable if someone kept old ciphertext+key.

Later optimization (Phase 2+): 2-layer envelope for large blobs / frequent rekeys (videos), so rekeys update small wrapper objects instead of re-encrypting big payloads.

Storage/serve infrastructure
Content-addressed objects: CID = hash of bytes; standard chunking + chunk hashes.

Propagation: view/fetch can cache and offer-to-serve (bounded). Hot content spreads naturally; cold decays.

Baseline availability: “author + at least 1 other copy” best-effort in MVP.

Contribution + capacity model
3× quota store (obligatory): each node hosts 3× the bytes they posted (local enforcement in MVP).

Pinned defaults to serving (easy disable) and is bonus capacity outside the 3× (doesn’t reduce baseline availability).

Opportunistic cache (from viewing) is also bonus and decays.

Priority/eviction: drop bonus (opportunistic/pinned) first; never evict 3× quota content.

Pin modes
Anchor pin: keep hosting the original CID (ciphertext); still governed by author’s access changes (wrapped keys + republish on revoke).

Fork pin: create new object/CID; you own keys; default unserved/private archive; can later serve as your object.

Abuse control (MVP-local)
Escalating cooldown on repeated pulls (“the more it’s done, the harsher”), with time-decay forgiveness.

Stacked token buckets:

per (requester, object)

per requester global

Requester identity should resist easy reset (composite key/session + loose transport/network fingerprint).

Phases
Phase 1 (MVP friends/family swarm):

social: post/repost + reverse-chron + basic custom feeds

infra: CID+chunking, 1-layer envelope encryption, local 3× tracking, hotness/decay, pin modes, local cooldowns

honest promise: best-effort durability; cold survives via intentional hosting.

Phase 2 (public scale): global reciprocity/QoS

enforce “no leeches” via: hosting pledge (TTL), random audits (chunk proofs), priority scheduling (contributors first; guests throttled), soft enforcement + bootstrap budget.

MVP invariants (do not break)
stable content addressing + standard chunking/hashes

1-layer envelope encryption now; upgrade path for 2-layer on large blobs

serve scheduler supports priority classes now

separate protected 3× capacity vs bonus serving caps

metrics hooks (bytes held/served + inventory index) for later reciprocity/audits

--AI Notes--
Consolidated full spec in social-media context: reverse-chron feed, reposting, custom feeds without surveillance; public unencrypted/private 1-layer envelope encryption; group add/remove semantics with CEK rotation requiring re-encrypt+new CID; 2-layer deferred for big blobs; infra store/serve with hotness propagation; 3× quota protected; pinned serving bonus; anchor/fork pins; local abuse cooldowns; Phase2 global reciprocity pledge/audit/QoS; invariants.
