11–20 of 90 posts
Can we stop calling everything "serverless"? It's a stupid name. I assume it means peer-to-peer here right?
It's serverless in that there is no specific server running it. The website is distributed across Ipfs and the chat is peer-to-peer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's serverless in that there is no specific server running it. The website is distributed across Ipfs and the chat is peer-to-peer.
It's still a stupid name.
So yeah it's a dumb term but it's here to stay. :)
What is used as STUN-Server for WebRtc?
The post makes it sound like it's a copy of https://github.com/cjb/serverless-webrtc uploaded to IPFS; examining the code [1] shows that '23.21.150.121' is hardcoded for STUN. This was seemingly set up by Wesley Dawson [2] at Mozilla in 2013, at which point it was an EC2 machine in AWS us-east-1. It subsequently made it into various gists and projects as a public STUN server. Later in 2013 Mozilla changed over to usi…
So we have a serverless web-chat with a stun-server that might go offline at any time.
I don't know a solution to do the chat really serverless. One option would be to use ethereums whisper, so we can use all eth-nodes to handle the webrtc-connection. This would not be 'really' serverless but at least surely work for a long time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The post makes it sound like it's a copy of https://github.com/cjb/serverless-webrtc uploaded to IPFS; examining the code [1] shows that '23.21.150.121' is hardcoded for STUN. This was seemingly set up by Wesley Dawson [2] at Mozilla in 2013, at which point it was an EC2 machine in AWS us-east-1. It subsequently made it into various gists and projects as a public STUN server. Later in 2013 Mozilla changed over to usi…
Thanks for that informative answer. So we have a serverless web-chat with a stun-server that might go offline at any time. I don't know a solution to do the chat really serverless. One option would be to use ethereums whisper, so we can use all eth-nodes to handle the webrtc-connection. This would not be 'really' serverless but at least surely work for a long time.
Can we stop calling everything "serverless"? It's a stupid name. I assume it means peer-to-peer here right?
I wanted to write that there is another similar project based on Beaker Browser (P2P) browser, that uses dat protocol and direct streaming to another browser... but I can't find it. https://beakerbrowser.com/
This is a strange way of saying "you're looking at this site through one centralised server hosted at ipfs.io".
Don't get me wrong, IPFS is great. I have released an application that works over IPFS. But I don't think obscuring the difference between a gateway and a node is beneficial. I think the difference needs to be highlighted front and centre, at least until we reach a point where every user is running an IPFS node without realising it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's serverless in that there is no specific server running it. The website is distributed across Ipfs and the chat is peer-to-peer.
I don't know man, when we say "defenseless", we mean it has no defense. "Useless", it has no use. We don't mean "it has so many uses that you can't really pick one". That would be "useful", I guess, which is pretty much the opposite.