Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol
1–10 of 57 posts
Re: Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol
#2[deleted]
Re: Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol
#3I’ve wanted this so badly for my static site blog but never found an easy way.
I’m so stoked.
Re: Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol
#4This seems like an even better use of a state-synchronization protocol like Matrix than instant messaging, for which I think XMPP is a better fit.
Re: Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol
#5I'm excited about this - tried the demo, how do I know the site is not stealing my password? Shouldn't this use OAuth to solve that issue?
Re: Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol
#6This is great! Any option to filter spam/hate speech automatically and not on the front-end?
Re: Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol
#7When I followed the link in Firefox with the MetaMask extension installed and enabled, I was greeted with MetaMask's Ethereum Phishing Detection page:
Re: Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol
#8I'm excited about this - tried the demo, how do I know the site is not stealing my password? Shouldn't this use OAuth to solve that issue?
Because you don’t login via the site, you have to go through Matrix’ login flow, just like with any client.
Re: Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol
#9This seems like an even better use of a state-synchronization protocol like Matrix than instant messaging, for which I think XMPP is a better fit.
It's not meant to be any one thing.
That's its strength.
Core to many usecases, many eyes, many industries' backing.
Re: Cactus Comments: Federated web comments based on Matrix protocol
#10When I followed the link in Firefox with the MetaMask extension installed and enabled, I was greeted with MetaMask's Ethereum Phishing Detection page: https://i.imgur.com/DSiut95.jpg
It seems to be a false positive in the phishing detector: