Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IPFS Support in Brave

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 464 posts

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#111

Post by Legion »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #102
tarruda wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is easier for Brave to deliver new features when the biggest work is done by Chrome team.

I don't quite follow, are you saying Mozilla's structure is poor so making modifications is harder? Or perhaps that Chrome's developers did the work on IPFS and adding Tor and that you feel Brave rubber stamped them? Mozilla has something like a $200M pa income (from Google alone). I wonder how that compares with Brave's income.

I think the person's point is that Mozilla is making a complete browser, rendering engine and all, while Brave is basically a shell of stuff on top of Chromium/Blink.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#112

Post by echelon »

barbacoa wrote: post #86
echelon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there goes my monthly Mozilla donation. I'm a liberal. But this is fucking fascism. When you want to take your position and jam it down everyone's throat and police how people can even talk. Fuck this. Decentralize everything. Edit : I just re-read the article after skimming and now I feel completely different. The article title is really bad. Mozilla is just calling for more transparency into how advertisers and…

"Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation." One has to read closely to pick up on the doublespeak. They are calling for the use of algorithms to hide ideas they disagree with and artificially promote ideas they agree with. It is soft censorship but far more sinister.

Damn, that's insidious.

The people downvoting me would be terrified if it were Trump that had this power.

My belief is that nobody should have this power.

edit: You merry downvoters that believe we shouldn't have freedom of speech should move somewhere freedom of speech isn't permitted. That way you won't have to be offended anymore. Although I think it would be fitting if you don't have a say as to which speech is permitted.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#113

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Shared404 wrote: post #61
jonathansampson wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please see https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/ regarding this claim. It's important to note that Brave never hijacked links, modified pages, our injected codes into content. The browser offered a pre-search list of suggestions for a small set of keywords (see blog post for screenshots). Happy to answer any questions you may have beyond the contents of that blog post. Nothing malicious here; no data o…

> “Show Brave suggested sites in autocomplete suggestions” setting’s default to “off” This may be the change I needed to know about to try Brave at some point. Are there any plans to get into any Linux distro's repositories? Brave wasn't in Ubuntu's last time I checked, although that was a little while ago. E: Formatting doesn't like asterisks.

I just added it to an Ubuntu (actually Kubuntu), very easy instructions, and familiarly default too - https://brave.com/linux/.

One slight gotcha, if you view the link from Tor it offers an .onion site for the apt repos string, but I wanted the regular repos as I don't use OS-level Tor but happened to be using tor-browser.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#114

Post by jcstryker »

Last few things missing for me to make the switch are: tree-style/nested vertical tabs (https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/464) and firefox style per-tab sessions (https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/34)

Really excited to see brave adding native IPFS support, though I would hope the team could start dedicating some cycles to some of these core features that firefox has over them.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#115

Post by Nican »

It is not the first time that I have looked at IPFS and I still have a hard time understanding how the ecosystem is going to work.

From my understanding, the file hash is basically the file URL, such that any change to the file content is a change to the file url as well. For hosting something like Wikipedia, how would one create pages that link to one another? And if indexes need to be created on top of the content, how are the different indexes kept in sync?

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#116

Post by vlunkr »

echelon wrote: post #30
jejkfmgmgk wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the one by the Mozilla CEO, "We need more than deplatforming"[1] 1: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...

And there goes my monthly Mozilla donation. I'm a liberal. But this is fucking fascism. When you want to take your position and jam it down everyone's throat and police how people can even talk. Fuck this. Decentralize everything. Edit : I just re-read the article after skimming and now I feel completely different. The article title is really bad. Mozilla is just calling for more transparency into how advertisers and…

They really needed to proof-read that headline.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#117

Post by joombaga »

jonathansampson wrote: post #89
0-_-0 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Brave already prohibits cookie and data bleed-over from one domain to another. Is that similar to First Party Isolation in Firefox?

I suspect so, but don't know the details of FPI in Firefox. We don't permit cookies and storage access by third-parties, while also blocking known bad-actors entirely. We also "farble" APIs to create noise for those who do have access. If there are any specific scenarios or questions you have in mind, I'd be happy to discuss further.

Would Brave's parallel profiles allow me to be signed in to 2 different AWS accounts?

I've tried this in Multi-Account Containers for Firefox and SessionBox in Chrome, and they're both pretty buggy, e.g. the console's username menu indicates I'm in account "A", but I'm seeing resources listed from account "B", or EC2 will work fine but clicking over to ECS prompt me to sign in again.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#118

Post by k__ »

alpaca128 wrote: post #39
thescriptkiddie wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I the only one who has significant performance problems with Brave/Chrome/chromium? Is this an OSX issue?

Performance on Linux is pretty nice - until I open more than a handful of tabs, which then leads to the computer spending more time swapping memory than anything else. Which is probably fine for the majority of users, but kind of a dealbreaker for me. And I don't plan on expanding memory just for the browser.

How much memory would you recommend to prevent swapping?

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#119

Post by minitoar »

mikece wrote: post #63
agilob wrote: post #40

Mozilla promised us Tor integration, IPFS integration and more private browsing by default. Brave delivered it all.

Does Brave have an implementation of Multi-Account Containers? This is the ONE killer feature in Firefox that makes it impossible for me to leave for Brave completely: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

I'm not terribly familiar with all the features that Multi-Account Containers offer. Does SessionBox for Chrome not meet your needs for some specific reason?

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#120

Post by hecturchi »

gorgoiler wrote: post #109

I don’t know anything about IPFS and would like to know more. When I visit an HTTPS URL I see content and some authenticity (of the server, at least) tied with the transport mechanism. IPFS provides the content and a distributed transport. Does the protocol include authentication of the author? Is it up to the content author to include their own signature protocol outside of IPFS? [If you post an ipfs:// link claimin…

IPFS has a mechanism called IPNS where any /ipns/author-hash can resolve to /ipfs/hash and the ipns record is signed and can only be provided by that signer/author.

But this is just another way of authenticating the "author". You can also use dns (if you can trust it), or you can use signed content, or you can get the ipfs hash through a channel you trust.

The main idea though, is that IPFS content is authenticated by default because it is referenced by its own hash. The problem on obtaining a hash you can trust is just a layer above and solvable in multiple ways, as needed.

Post reply on HN