[HN Gopher] IPFS Support in Brave
___________________________________________________________________
IPFS Support in Brave
Author : alexrustic
Score : 1107 points
Date : 2021-01-19 18:37 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (brave.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (brave.com)
| WClayFerguson wrote:
| For those interested in IPFS and the Fediverse or just a new Web
| Platform in general you can check out my little toy project here:
|
| https://quanta.wiki
|
| Click "Feed Tab" at the top once inside the app, to meet some
| other Fedizens.
| brakus1 wrote:
| I was excited about Brave until I found out the Founder and CEO,
| Brendan Eich, is on the record for opposing same sex marriage.
|
| https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/mozilla-boss-brendan-eich-qu...
|
| Anyone know more about this and where he stands on the issue now?
| contravariant wrote:
| Why do they insist it's a URI when URIs and URLs use the same
| syntax and the provided URI actually defines a means to retrieve
| the content? The censorship aspect is a red herring as both URLs
| and URIs carry the same meaning and only require the host to be a
| registered name, regardless of what registry this is (i.e. DNS is
| not a requirement), and in fact doesn't have to be a literal
| host.
| erichocean wrote:
| Maybe they shouldn't have let go the guy who made it happen...
| babypuncher wrote:
| Maybe he shouldn't have donated all that money to bigoted
| organizations.
| lmedinas wrote:
| maybe he does whatever he wants with his money.
| approxim8ion wrote:
| Maybe he suffers the consequences of that then.
| vxNsr wrote:
| Like building a new browser that's actually innovating
| instead of stagnating?
| approxim8ion wrote:
| Sure, why not. Good for him to be able to keep his
| bigoted values and remain successful, good for Mozilla to
| stand by theirs. I don't see the problem here.
|
| His replacement at Mozilla by all accounts seems to be
| not great, but they could just as well have signed
| someone who was and we wouldn't be having this
| conversation.
| vxNsr wrote:
| Ah, but I would argue that making business choices based
| on politics is always gonna end badly.
| approxim8ion wrote:
| Where does one draw the lines between personal politics
| and morality, though?
|
| I'm sure if you consider a business' only purpose to be
| enriching the wallets of its shareholders then you might
| not be wrong, although I'm not so sure.
| dang wrote:
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25839218.
| christophilus wrote:
| I missed this. What is the backstory?
| drak0n1c wrote:
| The founder of Brave was the CTO of Mozilla.
| waynesonfire wrote:
| good riddance. let him screw up his own browser.
| langitbiru wrote:
| He was also the CEO of Mozilla (for 11 days).
| zrm wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich
| erichocean wrote:
| Does Brave support Puppeteer?
| jonathansampson wrote:
| I believe the answer is yes. Should you run into any issues,
| please do let us know.
| mleonhard wrote:
| > The gateway could potentially also lie about the content it is
| serving you. In the future, Brave plans to verify content
| retrieved through gateways by using its CID.
|
| Does anyone know why this was omitted? Verifying a hash is
| straightforward. Both the old simple MerkleDAG format [0] and the
| new complicated IPLD format [1] allow fetching and verifying
| individual files inside a CID-addressed bundle.
|
| > Both requests you make and content you serve are observable by
| network peers.
|
| That is a deceptive way to say, "if you click the 'Enable IPFS'
| button then your computer will continually publish your browsing
| history to the world." And they make it too easy to enable. It's
| just a button below the address bar [0]. And the button has a
| deceptive name, "Enable IPFS". The browser can use IPFS through a
| gateway, so IPFS is already enabled.
|
| There are many important projects to improve privacy and reduce
| tracking and monitoring of user behavior on the network: DNS over
| HTTPS, TLS Encrypted SNI, blocking third-party cookies, proxy
| services (incorrectly called VPNs), anti-fingerprinting work in
| browsers, and mobile privacy features. Is there any work on
| making IPFS resistant to tracking? Right now, IPFS seems like a
| step backward for privacy.
|
| > By default, Brave will load the URI being requested via a
| public HTTP gateway
|
| > If IPFS is not yet configured, the user will have the IPFS page
| loaded through the gateway https://dweb.link. [2]
|
| Fortunately, Brave shows the gateway URL in the browser address
| bar. This lets users know which company is tracking them. For
| Brave users (dweb.link users), this is Protocol Labs
| https://protocol.ai , a VC-funded company in California.
|
| [0] https://github.com/ipfs-inactive/papers/blob/master/ipfs-
| cap...
|
| [1] https://github.com/ipld/specs/
|
| [2] https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/10220
| sneak wrote:
| > _Does anyone know why this was omitted? Verifying a hash is
| straightforward._
|
| A CID for a file is not a simple hash, it represents the root
| of a merkledag of a file tree and chunks of the file. Getting
| the dag metadata requires a p2p connection under normal
| circumstances. A public HTTP gateway, given the CID, returns
| file content, not the file tree or merkledag the CID is a hash
| over.
|
| It's doable, but totally reasonable that they didn't include
| this in 1.0.
|
| further reading:
|
| https://dag.ipfs.io/
|
| https://cid.ipfs.io/
| dennis-tra wrote:
| Chromium 86 safelisted some distributed web schemes for
| registerProtocolHandler() [0][1]. Among them are also `ipfs` and
| `ipns`. As my first contribution to go-ipfs I grabbed the
| corresponding issue and added support for the gateway code [2],
| which will be released with go-ipfs 0.8.0. This means anyone will
| be able to call e.g.
|
| navigator.registerProtocolHandler('ipfs',
| 'https://dweb.link/ipfs/?uri=%s', 'ipfs resolver')
|
| Afterwards opening something like:
|
| ipfs://QmbWqxBEKC3P8tqsKc98xmWNzrzDtRLMiMPL8wBuTGsMnR
|
| will be redirected to the public gateway configured above and
| handled accordingly.
|
| You can also configure a different gateway as some have voiced
| their concern about routing everything through dweb.link.
|
| [0] https://blog.chromium.org/2020/09/chrome-86-improved-
| focus-h... [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
| US/docs/Web/API/Navigator/r... [2] https://github.com/ipfs/go-
| ipfs/pull/7802
| traverseda wrote:
| Does IPFS actually work?
| [deleted]
| jonathansampson wrote:
| It does :) Download Brave and navigate to the following URL for
| a quick demo:
|
| ipfs://bafybeiemxf5abjwjbikoz4mc3a3dla6ual3jsgpdr4cjr3oz3evfyav
| hwq/wiki/Vincent_van_Gogh.html
| traverseda wrote:
| In my experience IPFS is only fast when you're using it
| through something like Cloudflare's IPFS proxy (which is
| basically a caching proxy). I haven't found IPFS to be
| actually usable any time I've tried running a node myself.
| Especially pinning anything beyond the most trivial of
| examples.
|
| Hoping to be proven wrong though.
| hecturchi wrote:
| It depends.
|
| For a start, newer versions of IPFS work much better, but
| the network still had a significant amount of older nodes
| making the experience worse for everyone. Luckily, this is
| changing as of late, it seems.
|
| IPFS shines when it can take advantage of content proximity
| (i.e. in your LAN, in your node etc.) or when there are few
| providers for the content within reach, at which point it
| just works regardless of connectivity to the outside world.
|
| In a general scenario, comparing IPFS-delivery speed with a
| CDN-backed website is not very fair. Might be slower but
| offers much more versatility.
| skissane wrote:
| It works but it could be a bit better:
|
| 1) First it loads it through a proxy, then shows me button to
| enable a local node
|
| 2) When I click that button, I then get a page with
| "Connection Refused" talking to localhost
|
| 3) After a few more seconds, the page reloads I get the
| actual IPFS page
|
| I am guessing with (2) the local node is being a bit slow to
| start. (I am using a 2013 MBP.) Ideally it would display some
| kind of "please wait node starting..." message at (2) rather
| than a connection refused error
| sneak wrote:
| > _Additionally, Brave only allows subresources to be loaded over
| IPFS when the main page is loaded from IPFS._
|
| Bummer. This means normal webpages can't load images or videos
| from IPFS. :(
| jl6 wrote:
| Is there a lightweight IPFS server suitable for hosting a low-
| volume personal website on a severely resource-constrained VM?
|
| Last time I looked IPFS software used a lot of memory and
| bandwidth.
| dsabanin wrote:
| For what it's worth, I'm going to give it a try. We need to fight
| the Internet centralization and censorship that will inevitably
| come with it all throughout the world.
| osgovernment wrote:
| Note that IPFS has had a browser extension for quite some time
| for IPFS support. This inclusion is mostly akin to bundling a
| browser extension. While it is great to see it included by
| default, it really isn't a great reason to switch browsers unless
| you have other reasons:
|
| https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/ipfs-companion
| vinniejames wrote:
| This is really cool! Way to push the web ahead Brave!
| fnord77 wrote:
| I don't understand. I tried putting the straight ipfs hashes in
| the address bar - /ipfs/blahblah - it didn't work.
|
| the links that do work go through ipfs.io. Is this just a gateway
| like onion.ly for tor?
| sebmellen wrote:
| You have to use the ipfs://
|
| prefix!
| redmaverick wrote:
| There are no youtube ads that play on Brave. This is my number
| one reason why I use Brave.
| mrone wrote:
| Really? This issue could be easily solved by using uBlock
| origin, which is an extension supported on almost all major
| browsers such as Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera and Microsoft
| Edge.
| pojntfx wrote:
| Awesome! I just hope that some institution (looking at you, EU)
| forces Apple to finally allow third-party browser engines on iOS,
| so that IPFS support is available on that platform (w/o a
| gateway).
| not_really wrote:
| That would be amazing, but unfortunately I'd estimate that hell
| will freeze over before that happens.
| benhylau wrote:
| There are several new and exciting decentralized web protocols. I
| am working on a tool to publish to all of them. Right now it
| publishes to IPFS and Hypercore, and will eventually serve signed
| plaintext so content can be shared to Scuttlebutt and Aether
| networks.
|
| For example, this site is published using
| https://github.com/hyphacoop/api.distributed.press and it can be
| accessed over HTTP, IPFS, and Hypercore.
|
| https://staging.compost.digital
|
| ipns://staging.compost.digital
|
| hyper://staging.compost.digital
|
| (gateway)
| https://ipfs.distributed.press/ipns/staging.compost.digital/
|
| (gateway)
| https://hyper.distributed.press/staging.compost.digital/
| sebmellen wrote:
| Do you have any contact information? Would love to get in
| touch. Working on a similar project at https://intpub.org (very
| nascent website, but mature ideas).
| benhylau wrote:
| Neat! Happy to connect here: hello [at] distributed.press
|
| We were also in touch with folks from Decentralized Science
| https://decentralizedscience.github.io
| needz wrote:
| Neat. Still can't make the switch until they have an equivalent
| to Firefox containers.
| jerf wrote:
| I have the Sessionbox extension for Chrome running in Brave,
| and it's broadly similar. It is not identical and I do not
| promise it'll meet your needs, especially if you define your
| needs as "exactly the same way it works in Firefox", but it's
| worth a try.
|
| But it's doing what I want it to do, have multiple AWS accounts
| open at once in one browser.
| 0df8dkdf wrote:
| just use the chrom profile it is same as containers in firefox.
| 0df8dkdf wrote:
| why is the down voted? I do like to know the difference
| between container in firefox vs chrome profile. The only
| thing is that ok bookmarks don't work across profiles. And
| you don't have alwasy open in container option.
| jonathansampson wrote:
| You can run multiple profiles in parallel in Brave, and we
| don't allow cookies to bleed over into other domains anyway.
| That's the default behavior. It would be great to have tabs
| from different profiles in a single window, but that isn't
| presently supported. Our work is not yet complete!
| generalizations wrote:
| In my use case, I keep multiple containerized tabs pinned
| with each of my (numerous, for work etc) email accounts. If
| Brave is able to support that (and tree style tabs), I'd
| switch in a heartbeat.
|
| Would love to try out the new stuff, but I depend on
| containers and tree tabs.
| DenseComet wrote:
| Its not just about having tabs from different profiles in a
| single window. Firefox containers allows things like
| automatically opening a specific site in a certain container.
| It allows for extensions such as the Facebook Container and
| Temporary Containers. There's a huge amount of functionality
| it provides.
| mahalel wrote:
| I agree. As someone who works with numerous customer
| environments this extension is critical for my
| productivity. Having a different profile (ie Chrome style)
| is nowhere close.
|
| If the container re-ordering patch[0] would be implemented
| it would be perfect, but it seems to be stuck in limbo.
|
| If Brave implemented this and did it right (with sorting &
| reordering) I would consider switching.
|
| [0] https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account-
| containers/pull/160...
| gnud wrote:
| > Firefox containers allows things like automatically
| opening a specific site in a certain container.
|
| I use this a bit. But the configuration GUI (provided by an
| extension) is soooo bad. So I only use it for about 10% of
| the sites I _ought_ to use it for.
|
| I wish Firefox would work on these features, instead of for
| example messing around with the address bar on every other
| release.
| leppr wrote:
| Agreed. I use containers everyday including multiple add-
| ons that layer over it, but the whole UX still feels
| incomplete/hackish. Given the number of people who seem
| to swear by them, polishing it should be a priority
| before another browser releases a version that's just
| better.
| mind_half_full wrote:
| +1
| abdulmuhaimin wrote:
| Brave is becoming more and more compelling.
|
| How I wish they develop their own engine(I know, tough task), or
| at least use Firefox's. Chromium based browser is really a deal
| breaker for me
| electriclove wrote:
| Why is a Chromium based browser a deal breaker?
| Daho0n wrote:
| Not OP but for me it is a deal breaker too. On-top of the
| privacy issues with most variants Chrome is also the new
| Internet Explorer, monoculture and forced "standards" and
| all. Firefox would have to become _really_ bad for me to even
| consider switching and, again IMHO, Firefox is also better
| than most critics say it is. Every time I see a critic of FF
| I have a hard time taking it seriously as most are hyperbole
| or FUD. Like "it uses x GB RAM!" and I look in Task manager
| and see it uses way way less*. It seems it has become hip to
| attack Mozilla and Firefox all the while using Chrome, Gmail
| and Google search (or if really hip all of these except DDG
| instead of Google search).
|
| * Atm. on my PC Firefox with 3 sites open and 10 add-ons
| installed (Including adblocker, decentraleyes and containers)
| uses 630,5MB RAM and 0 - 0,3% (of a very old I7) CPU.
| fsflover wrote:
| With Chromium, Google is defining the web standards like
| Internet Explorer did, because it's a monopolist.
| warlord1 wrote:
| Cue the guy with nebulous claims that IPFS going mainstream will
| lead to "white supremacy" and "alt-right" ideas in 3... 2... 1...
| christiansakai wrote:
| I feel like the golden age of front end is just coming to ripe.
| Ethereum smart contract toolchain is written in JavaScript,
| browser wallet like Metamask is the defacto way to interact with
| user's wallet without having to send any sensitive information
| (private key) to the server, and now with IPFS as well!
|
| Dare I dream that an entire frontend assets (compiled html, js,
| css) is hosted on IPFS, making a truly decentralized apps?
|
| Seems like an exciting era to be a JavaScript/frontend devs.
| sebmellen wrote:
| This is already the case with Uniswap:
| https://uniswap.org/blog/ipfs-uniswap-interface/.
|
| Let's see if the underlying economic models can mature to be
| viable in the "real world," or at least the digital real world.
| BAT, for example, made Brave possible, but the tokenomics are
| bad and basically no one uses it.
|
| That said, it is an exciting time, for sure! JavaScript sure
| has grown from humble beginnings.
| christiansakai wrote:
| What is BAT?
| sebmellen wrote:
| The "native currency" of the Brave browser -- you can read
| more here: https://basicattentiontoken.org/. As the URL
| implies, the name is "Basic Attention Token" for some
| reason. Didn't really work out, but has a huge marketcap
| even though no one uses it:
| https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/basic-attention-
| token/.
| christiansakai wrote:
| Interesting
| loceng wrote:
| Market cap is just a function of multiplying total shares
| by the last share sell price, no?
| Acrobatic_Road wrote:
| pretty much, just replace "shares" with "supply".
| Reedx wrote:
| Anyone know why they didn't just use an existing
| cryptocurrency?
| jonathansampson wrote:
| When we launched Rewards (then called 'Payments'), we did
| so using Bitcoin. During that time, our users would seek to
| buy about $5 or $10 of BTC at a time. Due to network fees
| and congestion, these users would pay as much as 90% to
| fees, and still not be sure when their coins would arrive.
| This clearly wasn't good for the health and well-being of
| Brave and Brave "Payments" (now "Rewards").
|
| Our hand was forced, effectively. We needed to pivot to a
| solution that offered better throughput, with lower fees,
| or possibly die an early death as a project. Hopping to an
| ERC-20 token offered immediate relief in both areas,
| ensuring Brave "Payments" would be able to go on and
| develop.
| sebmellen wrote:
| Hey Jonathan, big fan of Brave, and I meant no disrespect
| with my comment.
|
| Serious question -- how does BAT distribution work with
| ETH fees being in the same range now? Have you considered
| doing atomic swaps with a network like Stellar for a low
| fee transaction environment? They have a Metamask
| alternative called Albedo that you could probably
| effectively integrate into Brave.
|
| I've worked a lot with Stellar and would be glad to help
| (not shilling, I don't own many XLM, I just know the
| network well).
|
| Contact in bio if you're interested.
| AgentME wrote:
| Not him, but there is progress in the Ethereum ecosystem
| on multiple fronts (in a way that's lacking in Bitcoin),
| so following that progress seems viable. There are
| working ERC-20-compatible layer 2 low-fee/instant
| transfer systems on Ethereum that Brave could use, and
| Ethereum does have plans being developed for sharding
| layer 1 transactions which will reduce fees for normal
| transactions.
|
| (Disclaimer: I'm a bit biased toward Ethereum. I think
| it's more meaningfully decentralized and I own some eth.)
| sebmellen wrote:
| Always keen to see what's going on in the ETH ecosystem,
| and I do agree with you on it probably being more
| meaningfully decentralized.
|
| That said, I was more asking what they're doing _right
| now_ than what they plan to do in the future (I 'm fully
| aware of ETH 2.0 and all).
| arvin wrote:
| I think you're referring to Optimistic Rollups which is
| now live on Ethereum. It can help BAT in lowering the
| transaction fees and makes the it faster. Optimistic
| Rollups is one of the scheduled solutions leading up to
| Ethereum 2.0 with sharding.
| untangle wrote:
| Brave made $36M USD from an ICO in the middle of that hype.
| [0] BAT was a part of that "story." It's just a fish hook.
| That ICO is what's funding everything.
|
| [0] https://medium.com/faast/brave-ico-
| review-600-in-6-days-b51d...
|
| edit: added citation
| adkadskhj wrote:
| Can anyone compare Brave to Beaker Browser? I've long been
| interested in Dat vs IPFS, so i'm curious how their browser
| counterparts behave.
|
| I suppose right off the bat, Brave is a "normal" browser - so it
| just supports +1 protocol. That's really cool.
| VoxPelli wrote:
| Just a note that it's nowadays not `dat:` but `hyper:`, a
| rename of the protocol, that's used by Beaker:
| https://hypercore-protocol.org/
| Acrobatic_Road wrote:
| I know they renamed it, but something inside me want me to
| keep saying dat. It's familiar.
| VoxPelli wrote:
| Same here, and it's more specific than "hyper"
| kickscondor wrote:
| Beaker also supports regular web links - but Brave also
| supports Tor websites.
|
| However, Beaker has its own extended web API and tooling. You
| can fork websites, edit them - and you can script this
| functionality. (For example, I have a wiki software in Beaker
| that will handle all the forking and editing behind the scenes
| - using Javascript to make it happen.)
|
| You could say that Brave is a read-only HTML browser with wide
| support for decentralization protocols. While Beaker is a read-
| write HTML browser with its own protocol. And they both use the
| regular web as well.
| j-james wrote:
| A couple of distributed protocols have been posted to HN
| recently. How does IPFS compare to I2P, ZeroNet, Freenet, and
| similar?
| alexrustic wrote:
| See also ZDNet article about this:
|
| _Brave becomes first browser to add native support for the IPFS
| protocol_
|
| https://www.zdnet.com/article/brave-becomes-first-browser-to...
| fwip wrote:
| I've got a quibble with the headline - it might be the biggest
| browser to have native IPFS support, but some tiny browsers got
| there first.
| [deleted]
| monokh wrote:
| This is so great to see. One of the big issues with IPFS was that
| ultimately the end users were mostly using public http gateways
| and not contributing by "pinning" the content. That is not
| distributed and therefore as centralized as what we had. There
| was no easy mechanism for end users to pin the content.
|
| I hope that local nodes and pinning become default from here on.
| iampims wrote:
| Is it possible to configure the http gateway?
| blazeWayne wrote:
| Can someone educate me more about this? This only seems to
| decentralize content sharing right? How are servers going to
| work? They would still be centralized right? Things like REST
| APIs.
| leoplct wrote:
| Could IPFS be used for Deep/Dark websites?
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| As soon as it gains traction google will remove brave from it's
| play store and will pressure apple to do the same
| agilob wrote:
| Mozilla promised us Tor integration, IPFS integration and more
| private browsing by default. Brave delivered it all.
| zoobab wrote:
| http://zoobab.wikidot.com/elinks-with-bittorrent-support
|
| Boycott Firefox, Switch to Brave, my browser had Bittorrent
| support 16 years ago
|
| In 2005, Elinks browser had built-in Torrent support. In 2021,
| Firefox still does not have built-in Torrent support. In 2021,
| Brave has built-in Torrent support.
|
| Why Firefox has not focussed on decentralisation and
| uncensorability for the last 16 years?
|
| Maybe because they work for their grand masters (Google and
| other GAFAMs) who want power, and don't want decentralization?
| LockAndLol wrote:
| As much as I feel that Firefox isn't delivering, Brave just
| extends a browser engine monopoly which is dangerous for the
| web. Google can decide to change a fundamental part and
| suddenly 90% of all users will have it because they use the
| same browser engine.
|
| I would've embraced brave had it written its own browser
| engine or simply picked something non-google.
| musicale wrote:
| > Mozilla promised us Tor integration, IPFS integration and
| more private browsing by default. Brave delivered it all.
|
| Interesting. When Mozilla promise this, and what sort of time
| frame were they talking about?
|
| Presumably "more private browsing" has been delivered somewhat
| already in Firefox?
| agilob wrote:
| It was all after Snowdens leaks. Mozilla promised to de-fork
| Tor browser, move Tor into private browsing. They kept
| repeating this for years and years.
|
| They even started a bunch of Tor nodes to collect some
| metrics. It looks like they are removing their blog posts
| about it
|
| https://blog.mozilla.org/it/2015/01/28/deploying-tor-relays/
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20150722100146/https://blog.mozi.
| ..
|
| > Our primary goal is to un-fork the Tor Browser
|
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1173199#c31
|
| They were very vocal about how web is broken, needs more Tor
| and IPFS for everything to allow more free speech for
| disadvantage. Today they promote unregulated censorship,
| banning and shadow-banning public channels. You will find
| many posts about it between 2014 and 2018.
| Reedx wrote:
| Mozilla seems to be moving in the other direction now.
|
| "We need more than deplatforming"
|
| https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...
| autocorr wrote:
| Taken out of context that quote would imply "we need even
| more serious censorship", but admits that deplatforming a
| certain world leader is a not a real solution and that these
| actions that should be taken:
|
| > Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are
| paying and who is being targeted.
|
| > Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so
| we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and
| the associated impact.
|
| > Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over
| disinformation. [link to post on changing Facebook's timeline
| algorithm]
|
| > Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth
| studies of the platforms' impact on people and our societies,
| and what we can do to improve things.
|
| The first two are no-brainers. The third is alright, but I
| doubt re-weighting Facebook's timeline algorithm is going to
| put the genie back in the bottle. The fourth is useful but
| pretty generic at "do research on things".
| kortilla wrote:
| > Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices
| over disinformation
|
| It's horrifying that they think this is even possible. Some
| of the worst political divides are over which set of facts
| to emphasize (children in cages vs children separated from
| traffickers) or are speculation on ongoing events (Russian
| pee tape, Trump is a Russian asset, Russia stole the
| election, etc).
|
| "Amplify factual voices" just sounds like more echo chamber
| bullshit where you follow your politically aligned fact
| sources like Twitter.
| mikevm wrote:
| There is nothing "alright" about the third. It's basically
| an attempt to discredit non-mainstream journalists.
| Reedx wrote:
| "We need more than deplatforming" is the literal headline,
| and they support it in the post:
|
| _" Changing these dangerous dynamics requires more than
| just the temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad
| actors from social media platforms. Additional precise and
| specific actions must also be taken"_
|
| Note: More than. Additional. Also.
| autocorr wrote:
| I interpret the post as saying "banning people on Twitter
| won't solve our problem, transparency in advertising and
| social media algorithms will" because before your quote
| Mitchell (CEO of Mozilla) in the post says:
|
| > But as reprehensible as the actions of Donald Trump
| are, the rampant use of the internet to foment violence
| and hate, and reinforce white supremacy is about more
| than any one personality. Donald Trump is certainly not
| the first politician to exploit the architecture of the
| internet in this way, and he won't be the last. We need
| solutions that don't start after untold damage has been
| done.
|
| And then lists several possible solutions that seem quite
| reasonable, and we should for sure push for the first
| two.
|
| PS to anyone reading this exchange, at this point our
| comments are longer than the original blog post, you
| might as well just read the original instead of our out-
| of-order commentary. :)
| Aa9C4xPz43Gg7k6 wrote:
| Wonderful, as if I need my browser to censor more stuff.
| jraph wrote:
| Good, it won't.
| aarpmcgee wrote:
| My sense is that this blog post is objectionable to you but I
| can't quite figure out why.
| jjordan wrote:
| It's a statement in support of suppressing speech, and it's
| needlessly political. Mozilla leadership has mostly rested
| on their laurels (read: Google money) while Firefox
| consistently slid in market share. I've been a loyal FF
| user for 17 years, and this was the final straw. In the
| process of switching to Brave.
| antihero wrote:
| Deplatforming isn't suppression it's realising that you
| entities do not have to be neutral in their support and
| broadcast of various things. It's the question of a
| radical over a liberal mindset.
| aarpmcgee wrote:
| I don't see anything in that post about suppressing
| speech--can you help me see it? The main bullet points in
| the article don't seem to have anything to do with
| suppressing speech (unless that is how you are framing
| the bullet point which reads: "Turn on by default the
| tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation."
| al_chemist wrote:
| It starts with title "We need more than deplatforming"
| which means "deplatforming is good, but it's not enough".
|
| noun: deplatforming; noun: de-platforming
| the action or practice of preventing someone holding
| views regarded as unacceptable or offensive from
| contributing to a forum or debate, especially by blocking
| them on a particular website.
|
| It continues with "Changing these dangerous dynamics
| requires more than just the temporary silencing or
| permanent removal of bad actors from social media
| platforms."
|
| Blocking, silencing and removal does suppress speech.
| stkdump wrote:
| Freedom of speech should not guarantee 'right to global
| reach'. People should be allowed to say what they think
| to an amount of people who they can have personal
| relationships with, their neighbors, relatively close
| colleagues and similar. Deplatforming should not take
| this away, it should just take the biggest megaphone away
| mankind invented to date.
| kortilla wrote:
| It's still speech suppression and support of it, even if
| you think it's justified.
| stkdump wrote:
| Sure, in the same vein as building a dam is water
| suppression. It doesn't take away any right, it's about
| the limits of a right.
|
| You also suppress freedom of speech indirectly when you
| put someone in prison, so any crime punished by
| imprisonment seems to be considered reason enough to
| justify that as well.
|
| Saying that freedom of speech can't ever be limited is a
| very ideological point of view, so far away from reality
| that I wouldn't consider it worth debating at all.
|
| Now there is a valid argument to be made, how decisions
| to deplatform a person should be made and/or how such
| decisions can be appealed.
| aarpmcgee wrote:
| I appreciate your followup here! Thanks.
| Dirlewanger wrote:
| The Mozilla of 2004 is not the Mozilla of today. With
| unnecessary proselytizing/virtual signalling, implementing
| features antithetical to their values (Pocket integration,
| switching to WebExtensions), pursuing wasteful and
| fruitless endeavors (FirefoxOS), the company has completely
| strayed from its main focus: building a solid, open, and
| free browser. I'm still with them, but I'd be lying if I
| don't strongly consider moving to Brave every time they
| come out with actual innovative and exciting features like
| this.
| nvr219 wrote:
| What's that supposed to mean or have to do with this topic at
| all
| dx87 wrote:
| It means that Brave is implementing protocols that help
| circumvent censorship, while the CEO of Mozilla is saying
| that current censorship doesn't go far enough.
| SulfurHexaFluri wrote:
| I wonder why Mozilla even bothers with these kinds of posts.
| I doubt a single person in the world cares about getting
| political opinions from their web browser so these kinds of
| posts just dirty their image.
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| Sponsor's opinion is what actually matters.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| The funny part is that this is the bio in Mozilla's twitter:
|
| "We work to ensure the internet remains a public resource
| that is open and accessible to all."
|
| I guess by "all" they mean only people with political
| opinions they support.
| Kbelicius wrote:
| > I guess by "all" they mean only people with political
| opinions they support.
|
| You are just misinterpreting what that quote says. They
| think that the internet should remain a public resource
| that is open and accessible to all. They don't think that
| everything on the internet should be a public resource that
| is open and accessible to all as you are implying.
|
| Do you really think that everything on the internet should
| be a public resource and accessible to all, even your
| email, bank accounts, etc?
| jhardy54 wrote:
| In case you're unfamiliar:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
|
| Unfortunately part of making things "open and accessible to
| all" means revoking access to people who would weaponize
| the internet to contradict those goals.
|
| A tolerant society means no tolerance for terrorists.
| imtringued wrote:
| Well, in the case of violence it is quite easy to pass
| judgement and just lock them up. However, that doesn't
| mean you shouldn't listen to those terrorists. Even if
| they only talk bullshit you should at least try to
| understand why they became terrorists or else you will
| just declare more and more people as terrorists because
| it is the easy way out.
| Draken93 wrote:
| Thats exactly what Karl Popper says. We should listen to
| them, aslong as society is strong enough to defend a
| tolerant society against intolerance.
|
| The question is: When do we reach the point where the
| defence starts to break?
|
| You could argue that that point is reached when
| terrorists storm the capitol.
|
| I don't know if we reached that point already. What I do
| know: If we wait for too long, we reach a state of no
| return.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| I'm so glad people like Karl Popper didn't write the
| constitution.
| agilob wrote:
| >A tolerant society means no tolerance for terrorists.
|
| Ex CEO of Mozilla and current CEO of Brave has been
| removed from Mozilla for donating his private money to
| some conservative same-sex marriage organisation.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| If you can effectively cast your political opponents as
| "terrorists" you can rationalize denying them all sorts
| of rights and still get to call yourself a supporter of
| human rights. They did a similar thing during the Iraq
| war.
| hkt wrote:
| Iraq seems a little different to an armed invasion of..
| the capitol building. No?
| xvector wrote:
| One day, people may _actually_ need to invade the Capitol
| building, but it will never happen because of your
| eagerness to create an authoritarian state that shuts
| down all controversial discourse.
|
| If we deplatformed every "violent thug" that did
| something people didn't like, you would have a _fraction_
| of the rights you have today.
| Draken93 wrote:
| I believe that we passed a controversial discourse, when
| a certain group of people decided to ignore all
| reasonable arguments, to ignore sience.
|
| This is not about shutting down all controversial
| discourse. It is about "defend[ing] a tolerant society
| against the onslaught of the intolerant". Surpression
| shall only happen if there is no other way to defend a
| tolerant society cause the intolerant are working with
| (massiv, wide spread) violence.
|
| I don't know who is in the position to decide when that
| point has come. But one could argue that people invading
| the capitol is that point.(I don't think so)
|
| What I am really worried about, is that it seems like
| tech companies will have to make those decisions. In the
| end there will be individual persons, who make that
| decisons and that is very dangerous.
| brabel wrote:
| Wonderful sentence in this link:
|
| "But we should claim the right to suppress them
| (intolerant philosophies) if necessary even by force; for
| it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet
| us on the level of rational argument, but begin by
| denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers
| to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive,
| and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their
| fists or pistols."
|
| How relevant to our age... and this appears in a treatise
| by philosopher Karl Popper from 1945, who attributed the
| paradox to Plato's defense of "benevolent despotism"...
| i.e. the discussion is as old as civilisation itself!
| mikece wrote:
| 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...
| rmm wrote:
| For me, somewhat embarrassingly, the one killer feature is
| the "Send to Device" feature from firefox on iOS. Being able
| to send links to browser for later reviewing is super useful.
| Not sure why Edge or other browsers don't implement
| calvano915 wrote:
| When you add MS Phone Companion/Link to Windows on Android
| you can "Send to PC" which will either load the tab in Edge
| (newest Edge based on Chromium), or create a notification
| in action center based on your choice.
|
| Works great, though I needed to whitelist some domains on
| PiHole for it to function.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| I just send things to myself on Telegram...works fine.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| Chrome has had this for a few months. You're talking about
| right click browser bar and "send to my devices," right?
| Works for me from Chrome on linux and windows to android.
| jiofih wrote:
| If you're on iOS you already have native universal hand-off
| in Safari, works in both directions.
|
| Even if it's off, you can see all your other device's tabs
| at the bottom of the mobile safari tab switcher.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Maybe they use Windows or Linux.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Chrome's "Recent Tabs" works like this across platforms.
| It is a feature I miss in Firefox.
|
| They have both recently put existing tabs in the omnibox
| suggestions, which is a huge quality of life improvement.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Firefox calls it synced tabs.
| autocorr wrote:
| This is a killer feature for me too. Works great between
| all my devices across Linux, Android, and iOS. If I see an
| interesting article I just ship it off to my desktop to
| read later instead of keeping the tab open for days on my
| phone.
| aabbcc1241 wrote:
| I use getpocket for saving links to read, which is cross
| platform, including the web.
| Stephen304 wrote:
| I've unfortunately had the opposite experience with FF
| send, I still use it all the time (or try to) when I find
| links on mobile that I want to read on a big screen, or
| when I have an image url on my laptop that I want to send
| from my phone via SMS, snapshat, etc. But the delay is
| just unbearably long and inconsistent. Sometimes (most
| often when sending desktop to phone) the delay is 15
| minutes or more. I've found it a lot easier to use a
| bookmarklet that uses DDG to generate qr codes, but that
| only solved sharing in one direction.
|
| I've wondered how send could be so slow but maybe
| something in my setup is just killing it. More than
| anything though, I would love an easy way to access my
| phone's sharing options from my laptop (perhaps an addon
| button that shows a list of app intents that can receive
| a url/page).
|
| This is one thing I'm hoping to hack at when I get my
| Librem.
| Naracion wrote:
| I'm on Android. I use an app called Pushbullet, which
| mirrors notifications but also enables text and file
| sharing between all your devices. Sharing is instant. I
| also enable "open immediately on browser", meaning if I
| send a link from my phone to my computer browser then
| it'll automatically open a new tab with that link. It's
| pretty neat, it's really two or three taps away from any
| web browser tab on my mobile (open menu, hit Pushbullet
| shortcut; or open menu, open sharing menu, push to all
| devices).
| LilBytes wrote:
| I used PushBullet once and send a pornhub link to all my
| devices which auto played. When I say Autoplayed I mean
| it started to play on my work machine and I was working
| from home.
|
| Never rode my bicycle quicker (public transport sucked).
| Fortunately my computer was on mute but still had to
| confess to watching certain content on a work machine to
| my boss. Nothing came of it but all the same.
|
| Be careful. I even posted on r/TIFU at the time.
| jraph wrote:
| You might want to look into KDE Connect.
| vvillena wrote:
| I use the "send tab to another device" feature a lot, and
| it's true that sometimes it isn't fast enough to be
| considered real-time. Sometimes tabs appear instantly,
| sometimes they don't appear for minutes, and sometimes
| restarting the browser triggers tab reception. In any
| case, it's already an awesome feature.
| scns wrote:
| Have you tried KDE connect?
|
| You can share links and files with any connected device.
| Use it as a remote control for music players and
| presentations. Ring your phone from your computer to find
| it and more.
|
| https://kdeconnect.kde.org/
|
| (edit: add second paragraph and link)
| apexalpha wrote:
| I usually just message myself on WhatsApp.
|
| I also remember a popular extension that could do this,
| PushBullets
| drchickensalad wrote:
| this is in chrome?
| max_ wrote:
| The first time I actually leant how to use this I was like
| wow.
|
| It was the only reason why I left chrome for firefox
| daemoens wrote:
| Chrome got it a couple months back fyi
| ernesth wrote:
| Really? How do you enable it?
| jonathansampson wrote:
| Not a 1-to-1 parity at this time, but Brave offers parallel
| profiles. You can have one running personal interests, while
| the other has professional interests. Each profile is able to
| host a unique session for Facebook, etc. Brave already
| prohibits cookie and data bleed-over from one domain to
| another.
| mikece wrote:
| That creates a new window per Profile as opposed to just
| one window with a bunch of tabs, all conceivably in using
| their own Container, right?
| mikewhy wrote:
| How do you juggle multiple facebook / google / anything
| accounts in that sort of system?
| 0-_-0 wrote:
| > Brave already prohibits cookie and data bleed-over from
| one domain to another.
|
| Is that similar to First Party Isolation in Firefox?
| jonathansampson wrote:
| 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.
| jorvi wrote:
| > We also "farble" APIs to create noise for those who do
| have access
|
| Does this effectively do the same as the 'Canvasblocker'
| extension does for Firefox?
| jonathansampson wrote:
| Maybe; I'm not super familiar with Canvas Blocker. One
| thing you have to be careful with when blocking APIs is
| that you don't generate a negative fingerprint by your
| restrictions, which is every bit as effective as a
| positive fingerprint would be. Our farbling is pretty
| good, and will be getting even better later this month :)
| jorvi wrote:
| Despite its name, Canvasblocker actually does that, it
| sends slightly shifted API data, not only for canvas but
| for most fingerprinting methods.
|
| Nonetheless I'm happy to hear about the improvements in
| Brave. I've actually shifted from Firefox to Brave since
| I'm expecting Webkit/Blink to become a 'Linux kernel' for
| web technologies and thus the web.
|
| Keep up the great work! The only true remaining nitpicks
| I still have with Brave (after the introduction of Sync
| V2) are
|
| 1. iOS Brave being based on Firefox instead of Chrome iOS
| (I am aware of the technical cost of switching codebase)
|
| 2. Prevent browser close on last tab close
|
| If those two existed Brave would be perfect for me.
| ubercow13 wrote:
| I don't think it's the same. There is a list of things
| that Firefox isolates per-domain here [1], it's much more
| than cookies. There is a Brave ticket here but not much
| has happened: https://github.com/brave/brave-
| browser/issues/1053
|
| [1] https://2019.www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser/d
| esign/#...
| joombaga wrote:
| 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.
| jonathansampson wrote:
| Correct; your AWS session would be scoped to your
| profile. You could be using your own personal account in
| the "Personal" profile, and your professional/corporate
| account in your "Work" profile.
| minitoar wrote:
| 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?
| smichel17 wrote:
| Seems close, but doesn't give me temporary containers like
| the Firefox add-on with that name.
| toyg wrote:
| There is an extension for everything, that's not the point.
| Firefox ships it as standard and supports it as such.
| input_sh wrote:
| There's a similar thing shipped in Chrome now called Tab
| Groups, you just have to enable it behind chrome://flags.
|
| In my view it's nowhere near as nice as it is on Firefox,
| with site isolation (Facebook, Google, Twitter, reddit),
| temporary containers, and a myriad of other add-ons that
| improve managing them (keyboard shortcuts and transition
| rules are the two I use the most).
| xevrem wrote:
| tab groups are not equivalent to containers.
|
| its more like Vivaldi's tab stacks or FF's Tree Tabs.
| With groups there are no inherent additional security
| mechanisms in place to prevent cross-group
| contamination/access. i.e., two different tab groups can
| access the same site data.
|
| containers however are completely isolated from each
| other. i.e., two different containers have completely
| different sets of site data.
| toyg wrote:
| _> no inherent additional security mechanisms in place to
| prevent cross-group contamination /access_
|
| Are you saying the biggest advertiser on the planet
| likely doesn't want to add functionality that could
| potentially hinder tracking for advertising purposes...?
|
| I am shocked, shocked and appalled. /s
| minitoar wrote:
| Forgive my ignorance, but I think the thing OP linked is
| also an addon?
| toyg wrote:
| It's an addon from Mozilla itself that just surfaces a
| bit of UI for advanced controls. The actual feature is
| already baked in the browser, they've just been very
| conservative about exposing it to everyone.
| marcolussetti wrote:
| You are not wrong. However it's a first-party extension,
| as in it's from Mozilla.
|
| Debatable how significant that is as a difference.
| pricci wrote:
| Firefox has the containerization built in. You can use it
| without the extension but with worst UX.
|
| > For advanced users: You can also enable Containers
| without the Multi-Account Containers extension, by
| changing some preferences in the Configuration Editor
| (about:config page). Note that you will get a better user
| experience by installing the extension but, if you choose
| not to, you can set privacy.userContext.enabled to true,
| privacy.userContext.ui.enabled to true and
| privacy.userContext.longPressBehavior to 2 in
| about:config.
|
| https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers
| Seb-C wrote:
| Ironically the only time I wanted to use this feature was to
| separate my accounts related to my project and browser
| extension.
|
| Except that the mozilla 's site does not care about your
| privacy. Whether you use containers or not, they
| automatically get your identity from the browser, and then
| you cannot just be logged out.
| tarruda wrote:
| It is easier for Brave to deliver new features when the biggest
| work is done by Chrome team.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| 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.
| babypuncher wrote:
| 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.
| kortilla wrote:
| 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.
| cinquemb wrote:
| > Or Mozilla doesn't actually care about the
| decentralized web to even try.
|
| I think this is closer to being true, as someone who
| forks ff and has had to remove/add stuff and compile it
| myself for almost 5 years now.
|
| I'm tempted to start working on adding native ipfs
| support for myself in netwerk/protocol/ipfs...
| waynesonfire wrote:
| why would mozilla pay to add a fad technology or take on
| the tech debt?
| realdense wrote:
| Some of us believe that the client-server model has led
| us to the current situation, ruled by internet giants. A
| future where people are less reliant on giants is within
| our reach, the biggest hurdle is making it available to
| the masses.
|
| Hopefully uptake by non-mainstream browsers like Brave
| will increase the exposure, attract developers, increase
| the network and get us closer to having IPFS, Hypercore
| or some other protocol available to the mainstream,
| whether that be in Firefox or by some other means.
|
| Besides, you could argue that browsers have added plenty
| of fad technologies over the past few years, DRM comes to
| mind.
| babypuncher wrote:
| The biggest hurdle is convincing the masses that your way
| is better than the current way.
|
| I don't think that is ever going to happen.
| jabedude wrote:
| > IPFS, Hypercore or some other protocol available to the
| mainstream, whether that be in Firefox or by some other
| means
|
| TIL about hypercore! Looks like an interesting concept
| based on append-only logs. It reminds me of this work
| being done at VMware: https://github.com/vmware/node-
| replication
| ric2b wrote:
| It's the first one, they can't afford it, they actually
| laid off a bunch of people less than a year ago.
| Legion wrote:
| 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.
| killingtime74 wrote:
| I don't think the customer cares as long as you can use
| it
| bawolff wrote:
| The type of people who are into decentralizing the
| internet are also usually against a single company
| (google) controlling the rendering engine of most users.
|
| If you're talking about typical user of the average web
| browser, they care about IPFS as much as they care about
| the rendering engine - i.e. not at all.
| 00000000000h wrote:
| I am that person. I moved away from Brave because its
| still chrome/chromium based. I am also not confident in
| their "blockchain" advertising model and don't trust they
| are actually any less private with my data than
| chrome/chromium.
|
| It would be cool to see IPFS integrated and enabled by
| default on all browsers. I doubt Google would ever take
| the leap, but maybe Mozilla would. I also have doubt that
| Microsoft would but they would be more willing than
| Google. Anyways, I hope this can happen before Mozilla's
| market share shrinks more.
| jonathansampson wrote:
| You don't have to participate in the advertising bits of
| Brave; those are optional. But, they're a privacy-centric
| way to generate rewards which can be passively
| contributed to your favorite sites, sustaining their
| content creation.
|
| I would love to hear more about your privacy concerns; we
| have excised quite a bit from Chromium. You can read
| about those changes [on
| GitHub](https://github.com/brave/brave-
| browser/wiki/Deviations-from-...). We also audit our
| network activity to make sure nothing ever slips out. You
| can read about our [desktop](https://brave.com/brave-
| tops-browser-first-run-network-traff...) and
| [iOS](https://brave.com/ios-browser-first-run/) audits on
| our blog.
|
| Perhaps more of interest would be an independent, third-
| party review and comparison. Trinity College's School of
| Computer Science and Statistics did a comparative review
| of Chrome, Brave, Edge, Firefox, Yandex, and Safari. They
| found that Brave was the "most private" in terms of
| phoning home. You can [read their review online](https://
| www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf).
|
| Always happy to discuss any specific concerns you may
| have.
| jernejzen wrote:
| Thanks for this clarification. I use Brave less because I
| am actually afraid to install extensions, because
| addition phoning to Google. Or how does Brave handle
| that?
| jjcon wrote:
| > against a single company (google) controlling the
| rendering engine of most users
|
| That isn't really applicable here though. That's kinda
| like claiming we should be against Linux because it runs
| all the web servers. There is a difference between
| centralization and standardization.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Linux isn't controlled by an advertising company.
| bawolff wrote:
| There is a difference, and all the html rendering code
| being written by google is centralization not
| standardization.
|
| I don't think the linux comparison makes any sense for
| this situation. Linux has very little to do with the web
| experience, where the rendering engine is the core of it.
| Linus's ability to change world wide web standards on a
| whim is close to non existent. Google is literally
| replacing the WWW network stack (a good change mind you,
| but nonetheless demonstrates the level of power)
| the_other wrote:
| Some of us care.
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| The evidence is in, and I'm sure you're right about the
| typical users. But the discriminating ones know better.
| The difference is how much it's using you.
| dbeley wrote:
| Customers caring about IPFS support are also the ones
| caring about browser engine monoculture.
| Daho0n wrote:
| Those that care enough about privacy to use TOR and IPFS
| likely care very much about using a browser made by
| Google. De-googling Chrome is like removing telemetry
| from Windows 10 over installing and running Linux: For
| some it's great while others wont touch it no matter how
| much work is put into making it "safe" (and IMHO Chrome
| variants are at most "safe").
| jjcon wrote:
| > It is easier for Brave to deliver new features when the
| biggest work is done by Chrome team.
|
| Do you think Mozilla will ever switch to chromium? It is the
| linux of the web - would be nice if they could finally focus
| and stop dressing up their dead horse.
| Daho0n wrote:
| Would you like "the linux for the web" to join "the iOS for
| the web"?
|
| Such hyperbole.
| tarruda wrote:
| > Do you think Mozilla will ever switch to chromium?
|
| I don't think so. If they did, there wouldn't be much
| incentive for using Firefox.
|
| > It is the linux of the web - would be nice if they could
| finally focus and stop dressing up their dead horse.
|
| And what would they be focusing on exactly?
| jjcon wrote:
| > And what would they be focusing on exactly?
|
| Ipfs for one
| cycomanic wrote:
| Except that as many have pointed out already it works in
| firefox by just using an extension.
| zepto wrote:
| It was easy for Google to deliver Chrome when the biggest
| work was done by Safari team...
|
| It was easy for Apple to deliver Safari, when biggest work
| was done by Konqueror team...
| Guidii wrote:
| Google had contributed significantly to WebKit before the
| fork.
|
| https://blog.bitergia.com/2013/02/06/report-on-the-
| activity-...
| zepto wrote:
| Are you suggesting that are things that Brave should be
| submitting pull requests for? If so, what?
| mike_d wrote:
| In terms of active development, Google is working on Blink
| and Apple is still working on WebKit. Every other browser
| depends on Google and Apple to do the heavy lifting for
| them.
| smichel17 wrote:
| You missed "Mozilla is still working on Gecko"
| SulfurHexaFluri wrote:
| The fork from blink was so long ago its pretty much
| irrelevant now. Google likely spends more dev hours on it
| than apple does on webkit these days.
| zepto wrote:
| True, but not relevant to the point, which is that both
| Apple and Google built their browsers on top of someone
| else's work just as Brave is doing.
|
| It took years of shipping Chrome before Google actually
| forked Blink.
| shuringai wrote:
| and in return, brave replaces your urls with their affilate
| links. no thanks i'll took the hassle to open tor browser on an
| ipfs client
| john-shaffer wrote:
| That was a bug that was fixed pretty quickly. Details:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25841456
| kenneth wrote:
| Are we talking about BAT? Thought that was an opt in feature.
| jjordan wrote:
| It's on by default. If I had a complaint about Brave, is
| that it's a bit "noisy" by default. I'd like more
| customization options on setup so that there's less
| customization I have to do once the browser is installed.
| jonathansampson wrote:
| You're referring to a bug from June of 2020, which was
| patched within a couple days of discovery, IIRC. An issue
| which had no privacy or security impact. Details in our blog
| on the subject: https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-
| suggested-sites/. Happy to answer any questions you may have.
| 3395810 wrote:
| It doesn't sound like a bug. It sounds like a feature that
| was removed when people noticed.
| caycep wrote:
| I kind of wonder how many Mozilla developers/engineers jumped
| ship to Brave over the years?
| jonathansampson wrote:
| We have quite a few engineers whose roots lie within, or have
| passed through, Mozilla. We even have several engineers and
| team members who pioneered much of the Web at Netscape and
| prior :)
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Are you sure you want to participate in a discussion
| badmouthing Mozilla? You're not directly saying those
| things, but you are taking part in the dialog. That sort of
| behavior makes me pretty angry about Brave.
|
| Focus on Brave. You have nothing to do with Mozilla.
| bawolff wrote:
| I think its a little extreme to call this bad mouthing.
| People switch jobs. It does not reflect negatively on
| firefox that some of their employees now work at other
| companies in the same space. That is how jobs work - its
| not a life long commitment.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Jumping ship means something bad usually.
| joshmanders wrote:
| Not to mention Brave was co-founded by the former CEO of
| Mozilla and one of the influential people of the Netscape
| days, Brendan Eich. So it's only logical that a portion
| of Brave devs are former Mozilla/Netscape people.
| vxNsr wrote:
| I think you're misunderstanding what he's saying, I took
| it as a mark of pride that they have former Mozilla devs
| because Mozilla can honestly be called an internet
| pioneer responsible for much of the web we know today.
| Helloworldboy wrote:
| Is a mozilla enforcer going to come break my knees?
| jonathansampson wrote:
| I'm not bad-mouthing anybody; somebody wondered if we
| have engineers on staff who worked at Mozilla. We do. I'm
| proud of the history represented in our staff. They are
| the ones who pioneered much of this industry. And they
| are the ones who spun-up the browser wars again, rescuing
| the Web from IE. Mozilla will always be given credit for
| the wonderful work they have done, and continue to do,
| for the Web.
| jonathansampson wrote:
| And we will continue to deliver :)
|
| Thank you for the support!
| dleslie wrote:
| I've been using Firefox since its inception, and was a
| Netscape user before that. I _briefly_ tried Chrome, but
| swiftly returned to Firefox.
|
| Half my extensions are still broken on Firefox Android. I've
| been using Firefox desktop on my PinePhone off-and-on and not
| only do all of my extensions work, but it's snappy and has a
| superior UX. I can actually access and manage my bookmarks
| with a sane interface.
|
| And yet even desktop is sullied. Each major version tries to
| hide my bookmarks, or something equally egregious, and
| Mozilla frequently abuses my trust by promoting products and
| services through privileged channels.
|
| It's getting hard to justify using Firefox.
| rurp wrote:
| I too have recently departed the Firefox evangelism train
| after a great many years promoting the browser to all of my
| friends and family. The org has become far too disdainful
| of users. The constant UI/UX regressions are awful for
| people who just want their browser to work (ie. the vast
| majority of users), and management are more interested in
| political posturing than browser development.
| jjordan wrote:
| Same boat. I've used Firefox in spite of countless
| boneheaded decisions by Mozilla leadership, because
| underneath all that mismanagement, the product was solid.
| They started trying to mimic Chrome rather than be their
| own browser, and it was all over. The final straw for me
| was with their recent divisive political statement in
| opposition to free speech.
| [deleted]
| pachico wrote:
| Another reason to stick to Brave (also in mobile). I honestly
| wish Firefox was my choice but Brave has a better product
| proposition.
| gorgoiler wrote:
| 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 claiming it is a New York Times
| article, how do I know it's real?]
| issamehh wrote:
| 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
| gorgoiler wrote:
| I suppose I could copy and paste an inline signature from the
| ipfs content into some other software. Standard support in
| the protocol for this would be very helpful though.
|
| ('hecturchi's response hints at how IPFS achieves this, I
| think.)
| rpdillon wrote:
| 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.
| SulfurHexaFluri wrote:
| Its basically the same as a torrent or a public key. You have
| to first trust the source of the IPFS hash but if you trust the
| hash you can trust the content downloaded with it.
|
| If for example NYT tweeted an IPFS hash, you could trust the
| content was from them.
| hecturchi wrote:
| 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.
| gorgoiler wrote:
| 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?
| pier25 wrote:
| So essentially this is P2P between browser caches?
| Seb-C wrote:
| Brave is getting more and more my attention lately. I didn't
| migrate yet, but I am very impressed. The freshness and
| innovation reminds me of Opera in the early 2000.
|
| I have been a loyal user of Firefox ever since I quit Opera
| (ironically for it's shitty extensions catalog at the time
| compared to Firefox), but now I am very frustrated by its lack of
| meaningful progress and the way they break things and regress
| quite often while ignoring the feedbacks of the community.
|
| Firefox for Android is a joke, the tabs still behaves in a weird
| and confusing way, and half a year later I still don't have my
| extensions back.
|
| I'm also tired by the non-integration of the Chromecast on PC and
| the fact that it is not even possible to get this as an extension
| since they killed the ecosystem years ago and didn't give back
| the features as promised.
|
| Recently the synchronization stopped working on my Android, and
| like always with Mozilla, the only solution you will find from
| them to fix a bug is to reset your profile and loose everything.
|
| If Brave implements extensions for Android, I'll definitely
| migrate and quit Firefox.
| elwell wrote:
| > If you choose to use a local node, Brave will automatically
| download go-ipfs as a component and will route future traffic
| through this node.
|
| That's nice. I was worried it was just going to be centralized
| somewhere at a different level.
| paride5745 wrote:
| I tried to switch fully to Brave, but I had issues with Sync,
| messing up my 400+ bookmarks (thanks regular backups for the
| recovery), plus I really dislike uphold, as I had terrible
| experiences with them.
|
| Any plan to at least allow using other crypto platforms like
| coinbase?
| BrendanEich wrote:
| Sorry for the sync problem -- should be fixed now, if you are
| willing to try it again.
|
| We talk to many custodians and would love to partner with
| Coinbase. We've added Gemini (creator wallets now, user next)
| and are adding bitFlyer. So options beyond Uphold to comply
| with regional regulations, as well as to give users choice, are
| coming.
| paride5745 wrote:
| Lovely, thanks for the info :)
| nklmilojevic wrote:
| What about full iOS sync? That is the one thing that keeps me
| from switching to it fully (history sync in particular).
| Thanks!
| aarchi wrote:
| The 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
|
| [1]: https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/10220
| musingsole wrote:
| Tried Brave in the past. I liked it fine but didn't have a
| practical reason for it. Now I do and will be switching promptly.
| jonathansampson wrote:
| Welcome back, MusingSole. We missed you :)
| JBiserkov wrote:
| See also the Beaker peer-to-peer web browser. I love how much
| simpler it is to host websites, from the browser - the real
| read/write web!!
|
| I'm not affiliated with them in any way.
|
| https://beakerbrowser.com/
|
| https://docs.beakerbrowser.com/faq#what-does-beaker-do-bette...
| kubanczyk wrote:
| I'd like to take a look at say ~10 self-hosted sites. How can I
| get to them? Honest question.
| rzzzt wrote:
| Start with personal pages listed at
| https://userlist.beakerbrowser.com/ and go from there.
| kubanczyk wrote:
| One more question... How am I supposed to come up with that
| list? I was googling extensively and skimmed through both
| Beaker's docs and Hyper FAQ. They are friendly towards
| creators, but I didn't see a word about exploring self-
| published stuff.
| rzzzt wrote:
| I think it's in a bookmark that shows up on the new tab
| page in Beaker itself, after installation. Not sure why
| it is not featured more prominently.
| loceng wrote:
| Does it bother anyone else that Brave's claiming to be the
| first browser to support IPFS?
| j-james wrote:
| I don't see them claiming that anywhere in the article. "The
| first deep integration of its kind" probably refers to
| integrating go-ipfs into Brave, which is more complex than
| other changes they've made so far.
| jonathansampson wrote:
| The folks at Beaker are doing a phenomenal job; it's great to
| be working towards a common goal of a better Web.
| ChainOfFools wrote:
| Opera used to have this capability (internal web server,
| read/write web) until it was gutted and turned into another
| chromium skin after V.12
| nnwright wrote:
| I'd forgotten about that feature! God the old opera was a
| hell of a browser. M2, the first stand alone web apps ...
| JBiserkov wrote:
| Mouse gestures! Those were the days!
|
| I still remember the rhyme "Buy Opera today and make this
| banner go away!"
| iknowstuff wrote:
| Lovely. Mozilla should be advancing the web in similar ways in
| Firefox.
| josteink wrote:
| They're too busy taking down MDN, firing talented engineers,
| diverse-hiring non-developers and funding feminist Wordpress-
| setup camps these days for that to ever happen.
|
| Mozilla today is not the Mozilla we knew.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Well that assumes that inclusion in the open Internet is a
| bad idea. I think it helps the Internet, Mozilla, the
| industry, our society, and provides opportunity to talented
| people who otherwise wouldn't have it.
|
| Also, as you probably know, many of those things you mention
| are caused by lack of funds.
| josteink wrote:
| > Also, as you probably know, many of those things you
| mention are caused by lack of funds.
|
| When you are short on funds to do _all_ the things you want
| to do, you have to prioritize. It 's my opinion that
| Mozilla is prioritizing the wrong things if they want to
| remain relevant.
|
| What does it matter what good things they plan to do, if
| they will be gone in a year or two?
| Fellshard wrote:
| I believe that's what we call 'ideological capture'.
| 1996 wrote:
| Yes, Firefox need to focus on a usecase.
|
| It may not be able to beat chromium right now, but a working
| IPFS and TOR right inside your "vanilla" Firefox would give a
| compelling reason to keep it, when you can install
| chromium/chrome/edge and get better features - except this one!
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > working IPFS and TOR right inside your "vanilla" Firefox
| would give a compelling reason to keep it
|
| For 3 people? I don't think IPFS is going to impact market
| share.
|
| Firefox does provide privacy.
| realdense wrote:
| > Firefox does provide privacy.
|
| Really? Most people who use Firefox are still exposed to
| tracking. Google is still the default search engine and
| promoted via Firefox Home, and continues to track the large
| majority of users who don't change their default. Pretty
| sure Facebook and Twitter are promoted via the default home
| page as well. Third party cookies, browser profiling and
| other tracking mechanisms have barely been addressed.
| Mozilla seems more focused on lip service, shameless self-
| promotion and double speak than addressing the problem. The
| so-called free web is a joke, it's a web of giants, and
| companies like Mozilla who are mere pawns in their
| protection racket.
| waynesonfire wrote:
| lol right
| simmanian wrote:
| Honest question: what does it mean that Brave supports IPFS in
| this case? I can load IPFS links on my Firefox just fine.
| fledgexu wrote:
| Yes, you can. "Native Supports" means that Brave has a native
| IPFS node in their Browser and you don't need download IPFS-
| Desktop or use public gateway to visit websites in IPFS
| network.
| 4b11b4 wrote:
| Is there any kind of "index" of "public" IPFS sites?
| hecturchi wrote:
| 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.
| Acrobatic_Road wrote:
| almonit.eth (if you can't resolve .eth then go to https://bafyb
| eie2qeto62s3to6ngv6rublnghoh5qowwcwbuigpevr7uka...)
| elisaado wrote:
| Curious about this as well, may be a proto-Google but for IPFS?
| nvr219 wrote:
| No, not yet.
| [deleted]
| fledgexu wrote:
| Anyone would like to try IPFS in Browser, you can use the IPFS
| Companion(https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/ipfs-companion) and
| IPFS-Desktop(https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/ipfs-desktop). IPFS
| Companion supports many mainstream browsers.
| sriku wrote:
| Any thoughts comparing with the decentralisation in the Beaker
| browser?
|
| https://beakerbrowser.com/
| k__ wrote:
| Pretty awesome.
|
| I switched from Firefox to Brave a few months ago and really like
| it.
|
| Chrome performance is really needed for all the heavy weight
| browser apps I use for my job and Brave paired with NextDNS form
| a really good ad-block team.
| thescriptkiddie wrote:
| Am I the only one who has significant performance problems with
| Brave/Chrome/chromium? Is this an OSX issue?
| jtxx wrote:
| It's a memory hog on all OSes, but even worse on mac. and on
| my 2017MBP, cpu usage goes up quite a bit too.
|
| Firefox is also pretty bad on my mbp though.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| 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.
| k__ wrote:
| How much memory would you recommend to prevent swapping?
| BrendanEich wrote:
| See https://chromeisbad.com/. It worked for me. I speculate
| on why here: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/134724633
| 9755630593?s...
| jonathansampson wrote:
| There was a bug with our "Greaselion" component in versions
| prior to 1.0.41, which could cause some excessive resource
| consumption (usually for macOS users). We found and fixed it
| in 1.0.41, however. You can confirm that you're on this
| version via the brave://components page. Check for "Brave
| Local Data Updater", which should be up to date.
| k__ wrote:
| I don't have any up-to-date machine here. All my PCs and Macs
| are rather old. So I can't say, really
| gbh444g wrote:
| Does Brave support uMatrix and uBlockOrigin?
| jcstryker wrote:
| 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.
| Nican wrote:
| 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?
| arduinomancer wrote:
| Another commenter mentioned IPNS but another thing that seems
| to help with this is that the content hash can be a folder
| containing static files.
|
| You can then link to files within the folder using relative
| links.
|
| I guess this avoids having to have IPNS entries for every file?
| amelius wrote:
| But how do you let two files link to each other? So A links
| to B, and B links to A.
| 0-_-0 wrote:
| Or even link from A to an updated version of A
| theptip wrote:
| 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.
| SulfurHexaFluri wrote:
| Last time I checked you had to have a server updating the
| IPNS entry daily or it would expire. Is this still the case?
| joshmanders wrote:
| This all sounds like reinventing ICANN and tld's
|
| First you had a decentralized internet, anyone with a
| computer could put something online, but sharing IP's
| everywhere was not easy to remember, and some weren't
| static... So they created DNS and Top Level Domains...
| Acrobatic_Road wrote:
| IPNS is not DNS. It's just a fixed wrapper for mutable
| content. You are supposed to combine IPNS with something
| like ENS if you want human friendly names.
| [deleted]
| Splatter wrote:
| I have been a diehard user of the Vivaldi browser for a while
| now. I just posted the referenced article to their forum stating
| that Vivaldi should follow suit. Without such support I'll likely
| change to Brave specifically due to IPFS support.
|
| The internet is in desperate need of decentralization.
| jonathansampson wrote:
| We would love for you to download Brave and give the emerging
| IPFS support a spin. Any feedback you have about expectations
| and experience would be greatly appreciated.
| unicornporn wrote:
| How about becoming the first major browser to support Gemini?
| Not the cryptocurrency that is.
|
| https://gemini.circumlunar.space/
| desireco42 wrote:
| Vivaldi is great, I really like it. Both it and Brave are
| excellent places to browse internet. Glad to have options and
| choice.
| tylersmith wrote:
| I'm also a big fan Vivaldi and have been pretty vocal about it.
| Thanks for taking the time to make this request. I've added a
| comment of support, so the demand for this has literally
| doubled in 15 minutes!
| whycombagator wrote:
| I want to like Vivaldi but isn't it closed source? That's a
| non-starter for me (given most other alternatives are open
| source)
| hobo_mark wrote:
| Uhm, no? https://vivaldi.com/source/
| dsissitka wrote:
| Only part of their source is available.
|
| > Of the three layers, only the UI layer is closed-source.
| ... The Vivaldi UI is truly what makes the browser unique.
| As such, it is our most valuable asset in terms of code.
|
| https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-browser-open-source/
| chr1 wrote:
| Being able to contribute to ui code, or to customize ui
| without going through the minified code would be the main
| benefit of browser being open source. For discouraging
| forks, using a non-permissive license for js code, would
| be as effective as minification.
| eznzt wrote:
| Which is kinda funny since their UI is half-done and
| sluggish.
| Ndymium wrote:
| And yet it provides features that I desperately would
| want in Firefox, such as tab tiling. Really miss that
| from Vivaldi.
| [deleted]
| fabianhjr wrote:
| 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.
| josu wrote:
| >and that is better since it is easy to have an IPFS node
| running locally since it is quite efficient.
|
| No, it isn't.
| krspykrm wrote:
| 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.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| 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)
| krspykrm wrote:
| 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.
| StavrosK wrote:
| Yeah, they did improve it recently (within the past year
| or so). I see that Brave uses a gateway by default, I
| guess that's good for adoption but bad for
| decentralization. Then again, users don't care about
| decentralization as much as they care about convenience,
| so that's a good first step.
| Mandatum wrote:
| 12-32% on a Macbook Pro 2019.
|
| I don't think I'm going to adopt this.
| kickscondor wrote:
| Ok ok - check this out.
|
| ipns://k51qzi5uqu5dlusethckbaq0kf1udrhaq99lvrd21krkbnjukthfbv3hu4
| wkk8/ [Brave] (edit: got ipns://kickscondor.com/ working.)
|
| hyper://f8f860772e5e489beaf5c00390ab5b42703f8dd2a57d74e4d56343383
| 4208543/ [Beaker]
|
| http://kickscofbk2xcp5g.onion/ [Tor]
|
| https://kickscondor.com/ [Plain]
|
| Needs a Gemini version.
| sebmellen wrote:
| Awesome. Is this a one man show or many people together?
| kickscondor wrote:
| Just a person - not a big deal. Although the site is
| different in many ways based on the protocol.
| sebmellen wrote:
| Really awesome stuff, and I love the design :)
| Jayschwa wrote:
| Ha, very cool. The HTTPS version does not load for me right
| now, but the IPFS version does (somewhat slowly). Supporting
| all the hot protocols could be a good subject for a blog post
| or guide.
| anderspitman wrote:
| But does it support netcat? nc apitman.com
| 2052 <<< /txt/feed
| kickscondor wrote:
| Blimey. Including the netcat commands in the feed. >chef's
| kiss<
| anthk wrote:
| Gopher does.
| StavrosK wrote:
| Here's something for all you Brave installers to read to try out
| IPFS:
|
| ipfs://Qmdpah7j4mLswRLsv55qX4R9RzK3RtCWKfYNt4AEtXE2dG
| miguelmota wrote:
| I recommend Pinata [0] for IPFS pinning if you do not want to
| host your own IPFS node. I'm not sure when they'll start charging
| but it's been free since they launched and I believe Infura [1]
| also has free pinning. Cloudflare [2] is a good alternative
| gateway to use. For deployment I use this deploy tool [3] which
| makes it as simple as `ipd -p pinata my-app` to host a static
| frontend.
|
| [0] https://pinata.cloud/
|
| [1] https://infura.io
|
| [2] https://blog.cloudflare.com/distributed-web-gateway/
|
| [3] https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/ipfs-deploy
| sebmellen wrote:
| Pinata is great and I'm a happy user, but one note: Pinata is
| not free above 1GB. You can see their pricing page here:
| https://pinata.cloud/pricing.
| uniqueid wrote:
| I know little about this protocol.
|
| It seems to make things better like client privacy, server
| versioning and censorship of good actors.
|
| As usual, nobody bothered to worry about problems it worsens. Do
| we want more anonymity and less censorship for bad actors?
|
| Good and bad may be subjective, but nearly everyone looks at that
| issue pragmatically in some instances (to pick an unlikely
| example: some demented billionaire buying nukes), and in tech we
| seem incapable of accounting for that.
| anticristi wrote:
| I was thinking the same: Who is responsible to deal with my
| GDPR removal request?
| kortilla wrote:
| The people who produce anti-censorship tools usually
| philosophically believe that it's not the job of a
| communications tool to enforce acceptable speech.
|
| It's sort of like complaining that making it easier to vote
| brings the average voter education level down. The people
| making it easier are certainly aware but don't think it's right
| to make it more difficult to vote.
| uniqueid wrote:
| The first paragraph is a good assessment of the current state
| of affairs.
|
| That said, it's not a given that it be all or nothing. In
| fact, my complaint is specifically that we don't often ask
| such questions.
|
| There might be ways we haven't exploited yet to
| disincentivize certain behaviors. Whoever invented Bitcoin,
| for example, had to take problems with incentives into
| account that, at first glance, seem intractable.
|
| Given the way the internet turned out, we should think
| seriously about how people wind up using new tech _in
| practice_ , rather than assume everything will just work
| itself out for the best.
| morlockabove wrote:
| A lot of it is cynisism about people complaining about bad
| actors. The sorts of people who would build an anti-
| censorship tool are likely to be motivated, at least
| partly, be disdain for the censors of the day.
|
| 'Oh, now you want thoughtful dialogue, and a discussion.
| And then, when the reins of power are installed and your
| ilk have taken them, you'll be sneering as you kick me
| out.' - Something like that is a relatively common
| sentiment. Assuage this sentiment, and you might succeed.
| threevox wrote:
| Yet another reason why Brave blows Chrome out of the water
| sergiotapia wrote:
| I've been using Brave for about three years now as primary
| driver. It gives me so much hope that Brave is pushing this
| forward and into mainstream. The web needs to be removed from the
| control of the select few. The web is for everyone!
| SmokyBourbon wrote:
| Here's an ipfs url you can use to test that it's working:
|
| ipfs://bafybeigwwctpv37xdcwacqxvekr6e4kaemqsrv34em6glkbiceo3fcy4s
| i/
| always_learning wrote:
| Once they ship Multi-Account Containers i am switching. Firefox
| have already annoyed me with the "more than just de-platforming"
| nonsense
| ayewo wrote:
| This is the first time I'm hearing about this blog post:
| https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...
|
| I use Firefox but don't receive their newsletter, follow their
| social accounts or any kind of communication, and I'm guessing
| this is true for a lot of FF users, so I'm wondering how you
| learned of it?
|
| Did Mozilla try to shove their brand of politics down your
| throat in-browser? Via the new tab or a similar mechanism?
|
| If not, I don't think its enough--at least for me--to jump
| ship.
|
| Stackoverflow did the same by injecting the immediate past
| CEO's brand of politics into the side bar. Even with push back
| from the community, they didn't stop or apologize.
|
| In spite of their actions, people still derive value from the
| large cache of answers that is their Q&A product to get work
| done. Lots of people will keep going back to use their product,
| even if they disagree politically.
| reedlaw wrote:
| I would like to use Brave but there is a serious issue--users are
| unable to install non-store extensions.
|
| https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/2457
|
| https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/5761 (duplicate)
| shaunregenbaum wrote:
| I was able to install my own extensions. It was the same exact
| process as for Chrome.
| reedlaw wrote:
| On Linux? I just tried installing browserpass-chromium from
| AUR and it works fine in Chromium but not in Brave.
| gadders wrote:
| "Hey, check out this cool image of a van Gogh painting I found.
| It's at ipfs://bafybeiemxf5abjwjbikoz4mc3a3dla6ual3jsgpdr4cjr3oz3
| evfyavhwq/wiki/Vincent_van_Gogh.html"
|
| I think they need to work on making these urls human readable.
| drak0n1c wrote:
| That's what IPNS is doing, which is like DNS for IPFS. Another
| comment mentioned this example: ipns://kickscondor.com
| gadders wrote:
| In that case then, this sounds pretty cool.
| yostrovs wrote:
| Will Parler still work?
| devops000 wrote:
| Basically, someone could copy paywalled contents and distribute
| them on IPFS ? Or any copyrighted content.
|
| https://github.com/victorb/ipfscrape
| solanav wrote:
| Just like with HTTP yeah. You can download a webpage and
| publish it with Apache or NGINX too. Are you implying this is
| bad?
| devops000 wrote:
| Well, with IPFS it's anonymous and unremovable, right?
| mlindner wrote:
| I'm not very familiar with IPFS. If someone were to say serve or
| request illegal content, this description sounds like a third
| party could easily tell what content is being requested or
| served.
| neiman wrote:
| Do they always refer to the same gateway, dweb.link? Is there a
| way to change this gateway?
|
| Otherwise all of ipfs will end up going through dweb.link, and
| that's how you centralized a decentralized technology.
| BrendanEich wrote:
| No, other browsers and extensions use a gateway. This is a Go-
| IPFS local node, downloaded on demand (or you can run your own
| and connect via it).
| neiman wrote:
| No, they're using a gateway in case you didn't choose to
| install your own go-ipfs local node.
| momack2 wrote:
| On this page in Brave (chrome-extension://nibjojkomfdiaoaje
| khjakgkdhaomnch/dist/options/options.html) you can choose
| any IPFS gateway you prefer (or even run your own gateway
| if you want!).
|
| List of public IPFS gateways available here:
| https://ipfs.github.io/public-gateway-checker/
| neiman wrote:
| Thanks!
| michaelsbradley wrote:
| Are there any plans for Brave to make use of the Ethereum
| Name Service (ENS)?
| BrendanEich wrote:
| Yes, more on this soon.
| [deleted]
| petre wrote:
| I used it until they introduced widgets in nov 2020 and screwed
| with my start page, then switched back to opera. Of course bat,
| rewards and the other junk was disabled from the onset. Dunno why
| bother and build your business model around such useless non
| features. The browser is pretty good otherwise. Ipfs is nice but
| not enough to switch back, not until the start page, frequents is
| unscrewed anyway. Others will probably follow suit and add ipfs
| as well. A torrent downloader and magnet links would be nice as
| well.
| drak0n1c wrote:
| For those reading, the start page/new tab stuff can be trimmed
| and removed with a few clicks in Settings if desired.
| petre wrote:
| I just needed a multiline top sites like on the old version,
| nit just a line, not disable it.
|
| Also funny how all browsers populate the top sites by default
| with facebook, amazon and other privacy perpetrators, instead
| of leaving it empty. Like their obnoxious preinstalled or top
| suggested apps aren't enough of a nuisance. Go ahead, help
| them gain even more market share.
| Proven wrote:
| Why would I want to use IPFS?
| vorpalhex wrote:
| I've been critical of Brave in the past, but I'm glad to see IPFS
| gaining more traction. IPFS getting browser based support is
| what's needed to connect in traditional consumers and let it take
| off.
| simias wrote:
| I agree, I still want to support Firefox because I'm worried
| about all web browsers becoming shallow reskins of Chrome, but
| having built-in support for IPFS is pretty great.
|
| That being said given the trajectory taken by Mozilla it seems
| like I'll have to give up on it sooner or later... What a
| waste.
| meremortals wrote:
| Which criticisms? I've just started using it after Firefox's
| blog post
| gandreani wrote:
| Which blog post?
| jejkfmgmgk wrote:
| 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...
| echelon wrote:
| 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 social media operates.
|
| What a bad headline.
|
| I hope Mozilla never treads into the censorship
| territory.
|
| They can keep my money. :)
| barbacoa wrote:
| "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.
| noicebrewery wrote:
| A fact is not an idea, it's a thing that actually
| happened and can be measured.
|
| Your doublespeak, on the other hand, trying to equate
| facts with opinions, is what is concerning. This is the
| kind of nonsense that allows anti-vaxxers to be given
| equal voice to people who have studied biology for
| decades, or any of the qanon garbage that has resulted in
| people being killed.
| echelon wrote:
| 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.
| jamienicol wrote:
| > move somewhere freedom of speech isn't permitted
|
| We're on hackernews, where comments are indeed moderated
| vlunkr wrote:
| They really needed to proof-read that headline.
| ampdepolymerase wrote:
| It is not particularly surprising considering that the
| founder of Brave was fired as Mozilla's CEO and replaced
| by the current one specifically because of politics.
| jamienicol wrote:
| Brendan Eich wasn't replaced by the current CEO though.
| Nor was he fired. Nor was it just because of [his]
| politics.
|
| Nor does that article say what you think it does.
|
| But whatever, think what you like.
| dave5104 wrote:
| > because of politics.
|
| Even more specifically because of his anti-LGBT politics.
| kdtsh wrote:
| After a bit of reading, it sounds like he has some very
| nasty personal views. At least he respected the Mozilla
| community enough to step down when they came to light.
|
| His views do not impart themselves onto Brave of course,
| but I will stay with Firefox.
| arsome wrote:
| That headline is certainly inflammatory, but I don't
| think the actual content of the post is nearly as bad -
| they're not suggesting web browser start
| flagging/blocking sites or anything similar like it
| initially made me think.
|
| They're simply suggesting further transparency in
| algorithmic suggestions and research be conducted. You
| could even argue that they're suggesting that
| deplatforming simply isn't the ultimate solution.
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| You're right that the content itself doesn't suggest
| Firefox doing something troubling, but the headline
| certainly does. It bothers me much more from a company
| known for privacy than it would from someone else.
| [deleted]
| detaro wrote:
| How is "more transparency from platforms" not in line
| with what you'd expect from Mozilla? It's not like they
| just suddenly started to talk about the topic.
| alentist wrote:
| The GP specifically said the _headline_.
|
| See also
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25841660
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25841283
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25839697
| alentist wrote:
| It's more than that.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25841660
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25841283
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25839697
| jejkfmgmgk wrote:
| The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. They take
| the banning of Trump and conclude that there needs to be
| transparency in advertising? I mean, I agree, but it's
| certainly a weird article. I'm not sure if they're just
| piggybacking on a hot issue and inflammatory title to
| push this message. Whatever it is, I don't like it very
| much.
| [deleted]
| Triv888 wrote:
| Mozilla's current CEO is like the opposite of what
| Firefox used to stand for... I can't wait to switch for
| something better. I think that he really likes the Google
| dollars.
|
| Disabling most add-ons in Firefox Mobile, really? I still
| use the old engine (Fennec) even if it probably makes me
| vulnerable. And there's a bunch of other problems that
| make the new Fenix engine less useful then Fennec... I
| don't even know what is supposed to make the new engine
| better.
| ku-man wrote:
| Isn't the current CEO a female? (a very incompetent one I
| understand)
| sfg wrote:
| Brave's current CEO co-founded the Mozilla Project,
| Foundation, and Corporation.
| [deleted]
| jjd33 wrote:
| Peter Thiel (Palantir) is one of their main investors. that
| should raise all alarm bellas for a product that advertises
| itself with "privacy"
| erichocean wrote:
| Palantir exists to improve privacy of citizen data within
| the government. Without it, government workers have
| massive, untraceable and unaccountable access to private
| data. (See Snowden for more info.)
|
| I don't like that there's even a _need_ for Palantir, but
| given the need, I 'm glad it exists and I'm glad someone
| like Thiel is behind it.
| lasfter wrote:
| Instead we give that access to Palantir workers? How is
| that any better?
| TameAntelope wrote:
| I very, very much do not buy this at all.
|
| I don't honestly care all that much about Palantir
| specifically (pros and cons, though lots of cons), but
| one thing they do not do by simply existing is help
| citizens protect their data. They do a lot of things, but
| not that.
|
| That's just marketing/PR nonsense.
| webmaven wrote:
| _> Palantir exists to improve privacy of citizen data
| within the government._
|
| Huh. So the argument to overcome objections to a
| BrendanEich wrote:
| 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.
| webmaven wrote:
| _> Some first floor engineers at Brave have more equity
| than that small investment constitutes._
|
| Is "first floor engineers" an SV-ism (or Brave-ism) that
| indicates something like "early employees"?
| BrendanEich wrote:
| It's wider than SV, startup folks anywhere know it. Yes,
| early employees.
| miles wrote:
| Perhaps this?
|
| _The Brave web browser is hijacking links, and inserting
| affiliate codes_
|
| https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2020/06/06/the-brave-
| we...
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23442027
| BrendanEich wrote:
| The phrase "hijacking links" is, in a word, a lie. Its
| standard meaning implies that Brave changes the URL loaded
| when you click on a link (any or many links) in a web page.
| That never happened, and would be fatally scandalous if
| tried by any reputable browser.
|
| What happened was a bug in a keyword and domain
| autocomplete tier we added. Reminder for those not aware:
| all browsers add reference codes identifying the browser
| make (not the user) to keyword queries when you type words
| into the address bar. This is industry standard. See https:
| //twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1273327455105773568?s....
|
| The bug in Brave was a flag set wrong for two domain names,
| which are not keywords: binance.us and binance.com. These
| should not have default-completed when typed into the
| address bar with a Binance affiliate code, they should have
| been suggested completions the user would have had to pick
| by arrow down and <return> or mouse equivalent. We fixed
| the defaulting bug and turned off the entire suggested
| completions feature. As noted by someone else in a comment
| nearby, we instructed Binance not to pay us for any
| referred new users who traded (Binance does not pay on the
| referral, they pay only after if the user trades, sharing a
| fixed proportion of trading fees).
|
| So this was not "link hijacking" in any case. I'm sorry for
| the blunder, and we added a process step around any changes
| to address bar to audit harder.
| justsee wrote:
| Brendan Eich mentioned it was a default completion bug they
| got no revenue from, which was fixed:
|
| https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1270128401760743424
| jonathansampson wrote:
| 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 or privacy impact either. We were
| able to fix the behavior within 48 hours (IIRC), and burned
| the associated affiliate code.
| Shared404 wrote:
| > "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.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| 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.
| sneak wrote:
| Now we just need repositories and other manifest files to start
| listing ipfs multihashes in addition to simple SHASUMS files.
| joshuakelly wrote:
| Massive. I have a project that assumed ipfs:// would eventually
| exist natively within a mainstream(-ish) browser, and I'm very
| pleased to discover that after updating to 1.19.x it all just
| works.
|
| Excited for the forthcoming DNSLink support too, even if it's
| just a bridge to something even better. Best of luck to everyone
| who wants the web to stay bundled inside of the corporate state.
| justsee wrote:
| It really is great to see challenger browsers pushing the web
| forward like this.
|
| Along with IPFS it's nice to see Tor integration, low-level
| content blocking, a privacy-respecting Zoom alternative
| (https://together.brave.com/) and integrated MetaMask for Web3.
|
| Brave still has a small userbase (~24 million), but hopefully
| it creates the space / incentives for Firefox and others to
| play catch-up so we see a lot of these features standardised
| for the benefit of all users, regardless of browser preference.
| FlashBlaze wrote:
| Wasn't aware of this. Thanks.
| feross wrote:
| Also, they integrate my WebTorrent project
| (https://webtorrent.io) so that .torrent files and magnet:
| links just work out-of-the-box.
|
| https://support.brave.com/hc/en-
| us/articles/360035025231-Wha...
| anderspitman wrote:
| Man I recently "gave up" and switched from FF back to
| chrome for performance reasons. Might be time to try Brave
| justsee wrote:
| Brave's noticeably faster than Chrome (because of course
| it renders less stuff with the low-level content
| blocking) and on Apple silicon with the new arm64 build
| the rendering speed is officially ridiculous.
|
| Most sites now feel like they're some hyper-optimised,
| next.js static site generated build even if they're not.
|
| The web experience is not unlike that first time you
| switched from spinning platters to SSDs.
| aloisdg wrote:
| Opera used to support torrents out of the box back in 2006.
| Good old days.
| samoa42 wrote:
| was going to say this.
|
| amazing what can be forgotten and reinvented in an
| industry moving in circles.
| jsilence wrote:
| See also xscreensaver and the recent blunder about kids
| "breaking into" the Gnome screensaver.
|
| https://www.jwz.org/blog/2021/01/i-told-you-
| so-2021-edition/
| 0x445442 wrote:
| I guess the down votes are by those too young to have
| lived through a few of those circles.
| the-dude wrote:
| Not only was Opera released for Linux, they even released
| it for FreeBSD.
| onelovetwo wrote:
| Brave is the new firefox...or should I say the old.
| jraph wrote:
| Not at all. It is based on the Web engine of the most used
| browser. Firefox is still Firefox, the big difference for
| me with the 2000s being the decline of its market share and
| that it doesn't compete with a browser with a non standard-
| compliant browser. Instead, it competes with a browser that
| defines the standards.
| roenxi wrote:
| Old Firefox was a platform that ran a unique ecosystem of
| extensions, had innovative features that nobody on IE6
| had and represented a push towards a web that didn't
| quite exist yet - an open place with standards where
| developers were free of having some disinterested tyrant
| controlling what they could do.
|
| It is still Firefox, but that battle has been won.
| Firefox won it, then Google came in with Chrome and
| pounded the old way into the dust. It is gone now, mostly
| forgotten and good riddance.
|
| Brave is a more in the character of Firefox than Firefox
| in many ways. There is a vision in there somewhere of a
| new web where users are one of the primary beneficiaries
| of advertising dollars (!) and intermediaries like Google
| are cut out of the picture. That is a very bold vision. I
| don't think Mozilla is capable of that sort of out-there
| visionary approach to browser design. Succeed or fail,
| Brave is trying.
| pocketgrok wrote:
| Firefox is still the browser that maintains the
| challenger engine.
|
| Brave is more like Opera by building in support for a
| bunch of additional protocols.
| kickscondor wrote:
| I believe DNSLink works - I was able to get
| ipns://kickscondor.com/ working with a TXT record. Is that what
| you mean?
| simmanian wrote:
| I wrote this somewhere below as well but I'm honestly confused.
| It seems like I can load ipfs:// links just fine on my firefox.
| Is there something I'm missing?
|
| Edit: you guys are right. it seems i have installed the add-on
| some time ago and forgot about it.
| cinquemb wrote:
| You might have add-on that redirects you to some gateway?
| dylkil wrote:
| do you have metamask installed?
| anderber wrote:
| From what I remembered Firefox whitelisted ipfs:// links a
| long time ago, but you needed an extension (add-on) for it
| fully work.
|
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1354807
| j-james wrote:
| Corresponding Chromium issue:
|
| https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=72256
| 7
|
| They've also whitelisted ipfs:// links since August.
| onelovetwo wrote:
| when you type this in your address bar what do you see? ipfs:
| //bafybeiemxf5abjwjbikoz4mc3a3dla6ual3jsgpdr4cjr3oz3evfyavhwq
| /wiki/Vincent_van_Gogh.html
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| For me, without addon it just tries to search the url. With
| the IPFS Companion addon, it just works.
| breck wrote:
| Agreed. I've kept Brave around because it seems to work better
| on Paywalled sites, but haven't had a hugely compelling reason
| to use it yet. Stuff like this is awesome. It's like they are
| saying to Chrome, Safari, Edge--"hello, we're here, and we're
| going to take risks. wanna play?"
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-20 23:02 UTC)