[deleted]
IPFS Support in Brave
141–150 of 464 posts
Re: IPFS Support in Brave
#142Re: IPFS Support in Brave
#143Re: IPFS Support in Brave
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I see less than 1% cpu usage and 200mb memory usage and 4% spikes while serving my personal website or fetching an IPFS resource. (Though on a Linux system I also modified the low water setting up to 1000 peers and the high water setting to 2000 peers)
Yeah I just tried downloading the latest version and it looks much better now. I remember I tried ~3 years ago or so and it was horribly inefficient, so I deleted it, then gave it another shot around a year ago and came to the same conclusion.
But yes, from running it ~10 minutes just now, it looks quite reasonable.
Re: IPFS Support in Brave
#145The IPFS component is written in Go and is packaged as a crx, like the built-in Rust ad blocker. Can Brave components like these be created by 3rd-party developers? I'd love to make extension daemons in decent non-JS languages like Go.
> The go-ipfs daemon binary will be packaged into a crx file and installable via the component updater. There will be a different package per platform (Windows, macOS, and Linux x64) each with a different component extension ID. [1]
[0]: https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Brave-Components
Re: IPFS Support in Brave
#146I 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 b…
Thanks. That’s informative. I would be happy with the DNS route only if I had faith in DNSSEC receiving wide adoption.
As far as I’m aware every resolver on every system I use will silently fail open to non-DNSSEC DNS. It feels like that’s going to be the case for a long time yet, so maybe the rely on DNS you can trust route isn’t the best option.
To be clear: I’m not worried about malicious nodes on the IPFS network corrupting data which I’ve asked for. It’s more about how to avoid being phished with ipfs:// links I find posted online whose contents claim to be something they are not.
I hadn’t realised how much I relied on the safety of the padlocked domain name at the top of my browser, and on the domain name in links over which I hover. With plain IPFS every click feels like a new website?
Re: IPFS Support in Brave
#147Earlier 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.
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.
You’re either saying: Mozilla can’t afford to hire another set of developers to add IPFS, Firefox is too poorly written for this to be reasonably done, or Mozilla doesn’t actually care about the decentralized web to even try.
None of the reasons really sheds a good like on Mozilla.
Re: IPFS Support in Brave
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
There is an extension for everything, that’s not the point. Firefox ships it as standard and supports it as such.
Re: IPFS Support in Brave
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which criticisms? I've just started using it after Firefox's blog post
Peter Thiel (Palantir) is one of their main investors. that should raise all alarm bellas for a product that advertises itself with "privacy"
Peter Thiel is not personally an investor in Brave. The firm he's a partner in (Founders Fund) has a small seed series investment, which was led by Cyan Banister. Some first floor engineers at Brave have more equity than that small investment constitutes. Repeating falsehoods once you know they are false is lying, so please don't.
Re: IPFS Support in Brave
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
There is an extension for everything, that’s not the point. Firefox ships it as standard and supports it as such.
Forgive my ignorance, but I think the thing OP linked is also an addon?