WebRTC Chat on IPFS • Hacker News Board

Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS

#21

Post by dmihal » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 11:25 AM UTC

viach wrote: post #18

Interesting, why there is still no chat-on-blockchain thing. Sounds like an obvious idea for an ICO.

> Sounds like an obvious idea for an ICO

I hate this mindset

Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS

#22

Post by detaro » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 11:26 AM UTC

viach wrote: post #18

Interesting, why there is still no chat-on-blockchain thing. Sounds like an obvious idea for an ICO.

There's a bunch of these things, regrettably.

Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS

#23

Post by StavrosK » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 11:33 AM UTC

codesnik wrote: post #20

StavrosK wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

serverful, then?

Yes, or just nothing, as that's the default anyway.

Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS

#24

Post by viach » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 11:52 AM UTC

dmihal wrote: post #21

viach wrote: post #18

Interesting, why there is still no chat-on-blockchain thing. Sounds like an obvious idea for an ICO.

> Sounds like an obvious idea for an ICO I hate this mindset

/sarcasm

Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS

#25

Post by viach » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 11:53 AM UTC

detaro wrote: post #22

viach wrote: post #18

Interesting, why there is still no chat-on-blockchain thing. Sounds like an obvious idea for an ICO.

There's a bunch of these things, regrettably.

For example, could you please provide at least 3 (a bunch) examples which are in production?

Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS

#26

Post by asymmetric » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 11:54 AM UTC

> We can't expect each client to have an ipfs client installed.

Couldn't they serve [js-ipfs](https://github.com/ipfs/js-ipfs)?

AFAIK that would make every user of the web app run an IPFS node.

Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS

#27

Post by fauigerzigerk » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 11:55 AM UTC

some_account wrote: post #13

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still a stupid name.

It's used now as official term on AWS and probably other clouds as well. Its the new hot thing since you don't need to provision any servers or infrastructure. All you do is write code and deploy it to a cloud platform. And it's much much cheaper as well. So yeah it's a dumb term but it's here to stay. :)

Cheaper? I have no idea what running a particular app would cost. The ridiculously fine grained way in which the big IaaS providers charge for their services is a major reason why I'm avoiding them whenever I can. It's just too risky, too complex and too brittle. Any tiny change can have huge cost implications.

Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS

#28

Post by sametmax » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 11:59 AM UTC

viach wrote: post #18

Interesting, why there is still no chat-on-blockchain thing. Sounds like an obvious idea for an ICO.

There are several projects for that of course. ZenCash is one of them. I run 5 ZenCash masternodes, so it works, but it's a resource hog and it's really not fast.

Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS

#29

Post by indescions_2018 » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 12:01 PM UTC

This has potential. In peer brokering at scale, its the individual state of each peer that has to be mediated. The classic "LimeWire" problem. Just wondering as a peer, how much of my metadata gets leaked? Simply determining when or where I am chatting may be enough to de-anonymize me ;)

Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS

#30

Post by boomlinde » Fri, Jun 08, 2018, 12:10 PM UTC

jstanley wrote: post #19

> That means the "servers" hosting it are distributed across a wide network. 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…

> This is a strange way of saying "you're looking at this site through one centralised server hosted at ipfs.io".

No, your rephrasing is completely orthogonal to what they're saying. Both are true. Seems like dishonest nitpicking to me to say that they obscure the difference between a gateway and a node.