[HN Gopher] A guide to IPFS connectivity in web browsers
___________________________________________________________________
A guide to IPFS connectivity in web browsers
Author : tosh
Score : 122 points
Date : 2022-02-23 12:50 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.ipfs.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.ipfs.io)
| akavel wrote:
| Do I understand correctly that I still need to run either an
| extra service outside the browser on my client machine, or some
| service on a central server I own (the WebRTC-Star thing?) for
| this to work?
| kevincox wrote:
| For browsers that don't natively support IPFS yes.
| chalst wrote:
| It's worth noting that native support of IPFS is usually
| going to mean something like what Brave now does: the browser
| manages an instance of an ipfs-go node.
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| Is there any suggestion that browsers beyond Brave will
| support it?
| tremon wrote:
| Will browsers that natively support IPFS automatically become
| distribution nodes? Or is cached-but-not-pinned data not
| served to other peers?
| can16358p wrote:
| This is nice but for more mass adoption we'll need something
| seamless that will just be included as a script in a web page and
| "just work" by connecting to a provider while still customizable
| for people who want to use their own node.
|
| It can even "polyfill" any IPFS paths automatically (which should
| just be simply as replacing any ipfs:// URIs with ipfs.io gateway
| paths).
|
| For anyone trying to host pinned files behind a NAT/CGNAT would
| it be possible to hole punch to serve paths directly? If possible
| everything can me set up to work just out of the box with
| minimal/no setup in browser which should be the aim.
|
| In other words, we need something of an IPFS version of what
| MetaMask/ethers.js did to Ethereum based blockchains.
| dangerface wrote:
| The current state of the browser its just not possible to do
| p2p properly, WebRTC is the best bet and you need to trust stun
| servers to punch NAT you need to trust a signal server to
| connect to other peers its not real p2p so why not just trust a
| gateway and use that.
|
| Brave browser has ipfs support built in and I think there are
| plugins for chrome and firefox without the code localy to do
| p2p properly it doesn't really make much sense faking it with
| WebRTC when the end result is the same as using a gateway
| directly.
| can16358p wrote:
| Trying local node, verifying it works, otherwise falling back
| to an external node might be the best way to go. But still we
| need Firefox/Chrome/Safari adoption.
| artdigital wrote:
| > This is nice but for more mass adoption we'll need something
| seamless that will just be included as a script in a web page
| and "just work" by connecting to a provider while still
| customizable for people who want to use their own node. It can
| even "polyfill" any IPFS paths automatically (which should just
| be simply as replacing any ipfs:// URIs with ipfs.io gateway
| paths).
|
| That's what Brave does built in, and other browsers with the
| ipfs companion extension
|
| When you hit a ipfs URL it's resolving it either through a
| gateway or through your own node
| can16358p wrote:
| That's great but the problem is still Brave's market
| adoption.
|
| We'd really need some support from Firefox/Chrome/Safari trio
| to really start adoption. Most likely Firefox, then (albeit
| unlikely) Chrome and Safari.
|
| Brave's adoption is just too low, even though I (and probably
| a significant people here ar HN) personally think it's doing
| the best.
| rglullis wrote:
| Look at the trends. Brave has barely 3 years since it
| became usable enough to be a daily driver, and it has
| already 20-25% of Firefox market share. Firefox is
| constantly shrinking its user base, Brave is growing 40%
| YoY.
| simonw wrote:
| Where are you finding those numbers?
|
| Most global browser share numbers I could find bundled
| Brave into the "Other" category - this was the only one I
| found that broke it out separately:
| https://kinsta.com/browser-market-share/
| rglullis wrote:
| - Firefox at 216M MAU:
| https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity
|
| - Brave at 54M MAU:
| https://basicattentiontoken.org/growth/
| contrahax wrote:
| Currently working on Android + iOS apps that handle the ipfs://
| protocol natively and allow users to upload files as well. I
| think you're right on target RE: more protocol adoption and
| hopefully something as simple as making the links work natively
| and letting people upload with a simple interface will help
| out. The IPFS extension exists for Chrome/Firefox/Opera for
| similar functionality.
|
| Out of my hands but getting more browsers than Brave to add
| support seems like the next place to start pushing IMO.
| ctxc wrote:
| Hate it when articles don't expand on abbreviations. Yes, I want
| to read this. No, I have no heckling what IPFS is.
| robgibbons wrote:
| It's an article about IPFS, hosted at a website also called
| IPFS.io. Just click the logo, and it will answer all of your
| questions.
| tremon wrote:
| https://docs.ipfs.io/concepts/what-is-ipfs/#what-is-ipfs
|
| > That last point is actually where IPFS gets its full name:
| the InterPlanetary File System. We're striving to build a
| system that works across places as disconnected or as far apart
| as planets. While that's an idealistic goal, it keeps us
| working and thinking hard, and almost everything we create in
| pursuit of that goal is also useful here at home.
| alexb_ wrote:
| > First step involves the command line
|
| This is the "web of tomorrow"?
| fredoliveira wrote:
| Well, yes - the key word in that statement being "tomorrow".
|
| Technological innovation doesn't happen overnight. Browsers
| don't get IPFS support overnight. User interfaces don't get
| created overnight. And so, yes, sometimes it is up to people
| who can use the command line to pave the way to, as you're
| calling it, the web of tomorrow.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > This is the "web of tomorrow"?
|
| I'd argue that those who never wanted to do any of these things
| pretty much got the "web of today" they deserve.
| dangerface wrote:
| Don't worry the second step is to replace your keyboard with a
| neural link.
| tpoacher wrote:
| 2022 is the year of <s>Linux</s>IPFS on the desktop!
| legutierr wrote:
| The truly ironic thing about this comment is that there are
| more devices is users hands today that run Linux than run any
| other operating system. Of the remaining devices, the
| majority run a variety of BSD Unix.
|
| All of these devices might not use a WIMP paradigm--opting
| instead for a touch interface--but for most users, the
| majority of the GUI interactions they have with computer
| applications are facilitated by a Linux or Unix operating
| system.
|
| Linux won in the end, it's desktop computing that lost.
|
| Maybe something similar will happen with IPFS and related
| technologies?
| captn3m0 wrote:
| Is a first-party IPFS Web Extension a possibility? Like how it
| would have been with the old-style Firefox extensions?
| sp332 wrote:
| It's not a standard yet, but you can try it out in Firefox
| Nightly.
| https://github.com/mozilla/libdweb/blob/master/Readme.md#pro...
| lidel wrote:
| These libdweb Browser Extension APIs never landed in any
| official Firefox Nightly build. Mozilla stopped working on
| libdweb in 2019 (https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs-
| companion/pull/533#issuecomment...).
| [deleted]
| dangerface wrote:
| Seems like its necessary to get the p2p stuff working properly
| other wise it all just uses a gateway.
|
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ipfs-companio...
| dpweb wrote:
| What about upnp as an alternative to stun to achieve real p2p?
| You may need something native to setup but would not rely on a
| relay.
| southerntofu wrote:
| UPnP does not work on all networks (eg. double-NAT), and
| network administrators may be afraid to allow UPnP traffic as
| it would easily open doors to the LAN from the outside (for
| example from a stupid "smart" device).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-24 23:01 UTC)