This isn’t really Lemmy’s idea of federation, it’s just ActivityPub, the underlying protocol. Having a mechanism for jumping servers is unfortunately quite complicated and it isn’t clear how it should be done or if it is even possible.
Lemmy does allow you to export and import your settings though, so you can kinda do it but you lose your history.
The problem as I understand it is basically that user IDs in ActivityPub are intrinsically tied to the domain on which the user registered, so you can’t really move a user from one domain to another.
Well no they can’t, because that’s not part of ActivityPub. In fact ActivityPub mandates HTTP URLs. Of course, any extension can choose to change that, but since nobody is actually supporting magnet links, it’s not relevant.
This isn’t really Lemmy’s idea of federation, it’s just ActivityPub, the underlying protocol. Having a mechanism for jumping servers is unfortunately quite complicated and it isn’t clear how it should be done or if it is even possible.
Lemmy does allow you to export and import your settings though, so you can kinda do it but you lose your history.
ActivityPub spec allows content-addressed IDs, just nobody implemented them and now it’s too late.
https://gitlab.com/spritely/golem/blob/master/README.org
The problem as I understand it is basically that user IDs in ActivityPub are intrinsically tied to the domain on which the user registered, so you can’t really move a user from one domain to another.
It’s not true, all ActivityPub IDs are URIs
Yes exactly - those URLs contain the domain name, so you can’t change servers for a user as their ID is tied to the domain.
They can be URNs (like magnet:), as shown above.
Well no they can’t, because that’s not part of ActivityPub. In fact ActivityPub mandates HTTP URLs. Of course, any extension can choose to change that, but since nobody is actually supporting magnet links, it’s not relevant.
There once was a discussion going on to implement DIDs in ActivityPub.
Unfortunately you can’t just change the ID format as it would require a breaking change to the protocol.
pretty much. That’s why the discussion is still on draft.