@Konrad Hinsen “Aim high but make sure you shoot”. It is a peer to peer architecture. That’s what it’s enabling. But people have many devices, and there’s thorny realities about network traffic. I vehemently disagree it is in the “wrong direction”. Unless you plan to go back and re-invent everything from the IP layer up. I believe Server User-Agents can restore the missing sovereignty now.

There is nothing to say that a single device or piece of software could not fill the responsibilities and definitions of both client and server, but reality is often more complex. People own multiple devices. Personal devices are not always on or always connected. Some devices like a watch are incredibly low power, low bandwidth. Some situations need high compute, high bandwidth, high storage etc. I think it would be oversimplifying to try and remove the terms client and server from our vocabulary. The shift is that we have always assumed users only have clients, and servers are in someone else's control. I'm agreeing with you that a single end user, should have sovereignty over a stack that can combine roles, but I do not agree that it would be appropriate to flatten everything (oversimplification) or to remove the terms from our vocabulary (starting over on the internet)

I think that it will sometimes be necessary for your SUA to facilitate that role (even as a stun/turn server), but there would also be scenarios like p2p messaging where the peers relationship might have to fall back to an SUA if the client is disconnected, for example

Gut reaction, since I'm already familiar, is that elements of this remind me of what Sandstorm was trying to do with its fine grained objects and capabilities. It is one step away from just "self host apps" and towards something more Solid-like, I think. https://sandstorm.org/how-it-works#grains