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

121–130 of 464 posts

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#121

Post by theptip »

Nican wrote: post #115

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,…

https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/ipns/

Quoth:

IPFS uses content-based addressing; it creates an address of a file based on data contained within the file. If you were to share an IPFS address such as /ipfs/QmbezGequPwcsWo8UL4wDF6a8hYwM1hmbzYv2mnKkEWaUp with someone, you would need to give the person a new link every time you update the content.

The InterPlanetary Name System (IPNS) solves this issue by creating an address that can be updated.

A name in IPNS is the hash of a public key. It is associated with a record containing information about the hash it links to that is signed by the corresponding private key. New records can be signed and published at any time.

...

Alternatives to IPNS

IPNS is not the only way to create mutable addresses on IPFS. You can also use DNSLink, which is currently much faster than IPNS and also uses human-readable names. Other community members are exploring ways to use blockchains to store common name records.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#122

Post by [deleted] »

Nican wrote: post #115

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,…

[deleted]

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#123

Post by krspykrm »

josu wrote: post #100
fabianhjr wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most browsers have great support via the IPFS Companion ( https://docs.ipfs.io/install/ipfs-companion/ ) and that is better since it is easy to have an IPFS node running locally since it is quite efficient.

>and that is better since it is easy to have an IPFS node running locally since it is quite efficient. No, it isn't.

Seconding this. Unless something's changed, my experience with the default Go daemon they provide was shock at how much resources it consumed in the background. It was something like 12% CPU usage while doing nothing at all for hours on end - I wasn't even accessing any ipfs content.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#124

Post by issamehh »

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…

My understanding is that the integrity of the contents is assured due to the identifier being a hash of the content. From there I don't think it's really needed for a whole protocol to verify the author. Couldn't something as simple as a gpg signature be sufficient? If they signed the hash and gave it to you then it would be good

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#125

Post by hecturchi »

4b11b4 wrote: post #44

Is there any kind of "index" of "public" IPFS sites?

This gets close to it: https://awesome.ipfs.io/

There is also https://ipfs-search.com/

Some sites may offer IPFS versions transparently and you only notice if you have something like IPFS companion installed, as it then switches to your local node.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#126

Post by noicebrewery »

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.

[flagged]

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#127

Post by killingtime74 »

Legion wrote: post #111
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t think the customer cares as long as you can use it

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#128

Post by babypuncher »

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.

Mozilla makes an entire browser.

Brave takes an existing browser (Chromium) and adds some extra features to the UI and networking stack.

Modern web browsers are incredibly complex pieces of software. The overwhelming majority of code in Brave's repository is shared with Chromium. What Brave's developers do and what Mozilla's developers do are not comparable.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#130

Post by rpdillon »

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…

Not at all an expert on this, but my impression is the trust model is different for IPFS than for the web. IPFS is a distributed CAS, so the address is the hash of the content (this can be verified by the client). Whereas the web focuses on "I'm talking to who I think I'm talking to", IPFS focuses on "I'm getting the content I asked for". So, to answer your question, I think authorship is an orthogonal concern to IPFS's focus, which is verifiably delivering the requested bytes.

All that said, IPNS likely bridges the content/authorship gap you're asking about.

> A name in IPNS is the hash of a public key. It is associated with a record containing information about the hash it links to that is signed by the corresponding private key. New records can be signed and published at any time.

https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/ipns/

In this context, that key would be held by the author, allowing the author to publish different content by signing it with the key.

Post reply on HN