Can we stop calling everything "serverless"? It's a stupid name. I assume it means peer-to-peer here right?
Yes, I second this.
WebRTC Chat on IPFS
61–70 of 90 posts
Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need a certificate and a domain to run a gateway. For a public gateway, sure, that's desirable (though not strictly required), but for a private gateway (that most nodes are probably running anyway) you really don't need any of that. At home I can just go to http://localhost:[someport]/ipfs/[somehash] . With browser plugins you can also translate ipfs.io gateway URLs to your local gateway.
im talking about somebody that does not run a node accessing it via "old internet", im assuming the OP has this in mind with his comment
Well I was replying in the context of someone saying there is a meaningful difference to a gateway vs a node. If you access content via a gateway, your content is hosted by IPFS. The content gains all the benefits of IPFS, but you, the viewer, do not. However, if the IPFS Gateway works, ie it isn't throttling/blocked/etc, then you still get the content. I'm struggling to find a meaningful difference, is what I mean.
Now if everyone accessed the content via a gateway, then sure - that undermines the point of IPFS. But a gateway isn't inherently bad, nor is it worse in most respects than a local node - at least, to my understanding.
Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS
#63> 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…
Thanks, yes as a community we need to address the problem of ipfs.io as a centralized DNS gateway. What happens if they don't pay their domain name registration fees?
ipfs companion is worthy of mention:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ipfs-companio...
It converts ipfs.io to use your local resolver (amongst other cool things).
Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS
#64I wanted to write that there is another similar project based on Beaker Browser (P2P) browser, that uses dat protocol and direct streaming to another browser... but I can't find it. https://beakerbrowser.com/
I never understood how Beaker browser can act as a server listening on a port. It sounds like you always need relays on the internet because your router and ISP is gonna block all ports unless requested not to. Read this: https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/stories/design-challenge-avoid-ce...
Really excited about scuttlebutt, will make a future post on it, thanks!
Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
My original comment was a little bit sarcastic, but seriously - why not? I understand that a single blockchain will not handle global scale messaging. But a set of federated installations, could that work?
"My original comment was a little bit sarcastic, but seriously - why not?" Because in engineering, the question is not "why not", but "why". Blockchains are not the default answer. What positive virtue is blockchain going to bring to your IM system that is not better attained by a non-blockchain-based solution? If you can answer that, great. I'm not saying this has no answer. I'm just saying it's the real question. I…
Thank you, great comment, excellent points.
I'm not discussing here nation-state certificate ledgers vs my small miserable blockchain, but instead an instance of a federated (say, XMPP) network server vs blockchain based solution. From my point of view, on this level, it provides more security and, what is more important , incentives to run such a thing.
Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
"My original comment was a little bit sarcastic, but seriously - why not?" Because in engineering, the question is not "why not", but "why". Blockchains are not the default answer. What positive virtue is blockchain going to bring to your IM system that is not better attained by a non-blockchain-based solution? If you can answer that, great. I'm not saying this has no answer. I'm just saying it's the real question. I…
Thank you, great comment, excellent points. I'm not discussing here nation-state certificate ledgers vs my small miserable blockchain, but instead an instance of a federated (say, XMPP) network server vs blockchain based solution. From my point of view, on this level, it provides more security and, what is more important , incentives to run such a thing.
A blockchain-based solution to what, though? Bearing in mind the XMPP network exists now, and works. (It may not be "winning", but it works.) What is even the problem?
Though I will concede your point slightly; if XMPP needs some more Hype Juice to win, I can't deny "but on a blockchain!" could help there. Kinda not being sarcastic here.
Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS
#67> 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.
This was very interesting, but sadly: https://github.com/ipfs/js-ipfs/tree/master/examples/exchang... > Note: As js-ipfs@0.29.0 currently doesn't support DHT peer discovery, the peer from which you are fetching data should be within the reach (local or in public IP) of the browser node. The PR to implement DHT has been languishing since May 2017: https://github.com/ipfs/js-ipfs/pull/856/files
> The PR to implement DHT has been languishing since May 2017: https://github.com/ipfs/js-ipfs/pull/856/files
But it just received an update 4 days ago! :)
Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you, great comment, excellent points. I'm not discussing here nation-state certificate ledgers vs my small miserable blockchain, but instead an instance of a federated (say, XMPP) network server vs blockchain based solution. From my point of view, on this level, it provides more security and, what is more important , incentives to run such a thing.
A blockchain-based solution to what , though? Bearing in mind the XMPP network exists now , and works. (It may not be "winning", but it works .) What is even the problem? Though I will concede your point slightly; if XMPP needs some more Hype Juice to win, I can't deny "but on a blockchain !" could help there. Kinda not being sarcastic here.
>> A blockchain-based solution to what, though?
To the declining popularity of Jabber, to put it short.
As an additional benefit, blockchain is indeed more secure to run than an ejabberd instance.
I understand your irony with "Hype Juice" etc. But in the end, good software is that which people use, right?
Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS
#69Please do head over to https://github.com/cjb/serverless-webrtc to make issues and PRs! The most painstaking part for me is how long it takes to get the offer in the first place without a useful dialog.
Re: WebRTC Chat on IPFS
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really keep track of those things, but I can give you two attempts without much searching: just this week I saw https://adamant.im There was a thing called "my echo" (which appears to have failed/been cancelled).
Thank you for providing an example. It's not a "bunch" but still. Could you explain why did you use word "regrettably", is it a bad thing these projects exists?
I think @detaro says 'regrettably' because of the distaste many have about ICOs and the hype related to them. However, I too would like to hear from @detaro on this.