[HN Gopher] The Impervious Browser: Your Portal to the P2P Internet
___________________________________________________________________
The Impervious Browser: Your Portal to the P2P Internet
Author : janandonly
Score : 121 points
Date : 2022-04-09 15:13 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (newsletter.impervious.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (newsletter.impervious.ai)
| petesergeant wrote:
| As someone not embedded in "web3" or whatever they're calling it
| these days, this just reads like parody? Is there anything of
| value behind it all?
| yayr wrote:
| If this stack gives the control over data back to the users,
| there will be some value. But I assume, even with this stack
| there will again be tendencies towards centralization driven by
| convenience, efficiency and simply bargaining power...
| can16358p wrote:
| If the browser has actual native support for interacting with
| EVM chains and IPFS, supporting user-friendly features like ENS
| or UD domains, allowing anyone to publish a page or an app in a
| decentralized manner, it certainly has value especially with
| the current centralization (e.g. FB/Twitter/Google: censorship,
| banks: control over money etc).
| egberts1 wrote:
| Wow. An impressive write-up (albeit from a marketing POV). While,
| I am vaguely familiar with the various P2P and its protocol
| specs, the other protocols are newer and was not able to
| "quickly" find its protocol specs.
|
| Now we wait for various 3rd party evaluators to assess and audit
| (and of course, publish).
|
| Be nice to see a demo ISO or something for evaluation.
| janandonly wrote:
| There is a waiting list on their website:
| https://www.impervious.ai/contact/
|
| I signed up for it just now... Indeed, it sounds very good, but
| the proof is in the pudding.
| sirmike_ wrote:
| I am not clear or see the obvious problem this would solve?
|
| Could someone help me understand the user story/user case for the
| problem this solves today for a user?
|
| I honestly have a hard time with these p2p/decentrialized/
| blockchain/*xyzcoin items. After you have seen one, they all
| kinda cast the same shadow.
| binarymax wrote:
| Finally something that looks interesting and useable coming from
| the "web3" crowd.
|
| But I'm a skeptic. I'll remain a skeptic until I see something
| that works as well as our existing tools. I'll also remain a
| skeptic if I need to join the cryptocurrency cult for it to be
| usable.
|
| Most of the things listed here are worthwhile ideas. I want
| safety and privacy on the web for everyone. But I don't want to
| get involved with Bitcoin if that's a prerequisite.
|
| The world needs this in a way where they can install a browser
| like any other, and just start using it. No wallets, no angle.
| Just let it be a free tool of communication, collaboration and
| knowledge sharing.
| legrande wrote:
| Ethereum _et al_ are toy systems. We 're only barely scratching
| the surface of what we can do with them. The early Internet was
| a toy system, and look how it blossomed into this marvel we
| call the The (modern) Internet.
|
| Failure is an opportunity to start again more intelligently. I
| have no doubt the Internet will eventually become distributed
| and decentralized. Just add time and political will.
| koehr wrote:
| The misconception here is that the internet is not
| decentralized. The original idea of the internet is to be
| decentralized. There are just very large centralized silos
| built on top of its structure.
| freedomben wrote:
| I think you and GP are both right. The original idea and
| design of the internet is decentralized, but we're at a
| point where it's pretty hard to do that. Email being the
| best example. I'm quite the self-hoster and I've self-
| hosted email before, but even I pay for it now because
| unless you own your IP address and have invested years into
| building reputation, deliverability is abysmal. And one
| accidental click of "this is spam" by a recipient and your
| reputation is shot to hell.
|
| So philosophical you're right, it's decentralized. But
| practically, it's more complicated.
| dmitriid wrote:
| > The early Internet was a toy system, and look how it
| blossomed into this marvel
|
| Juicero was also a toy system, and it crashed and burned.
| What (except wishful thinking) makes you think crypto is the
| Internet and not Juicero
| warpech wrote:
| > The early Internet was a toy system, and look how it
| blossomed into this marvel we call the The (modern) Internet.
|
| Not really. The early Internet was a tool for the army and
| the academia. Web3, so far, is a tool for speculants.
| can16358p wrote:
| Regular money and computers can be tool for many, including
| bad actors too.
|
| Just because it's an open platform that makes speculative
| assets emerge doesn't mean the underlying technology and
| philosophy has great potential. I'm pretty much sure that
| the killer app of crypto is not here yet, and when it is
| here, it will change many views.
| creata wrote:
| > I'm pretty much sure that the killer app of crypto...
| when it is here... will change many views.
|
| What convinced you?
| freedomben wrote:
| > _The world needs this in a way where they can install a
| browser like any other, and just start using it. No wallets, no
| angle. Just let it be a free tool of communication,
| collaboration and knowledge sharing._
|
| If you don't care about identity, payments, etc then is there a
| reason you couldn't do that with this browser? But also, as
| much as I don't like the near-monopoly situation, we do have a
| pretty usable mature set of options for that already in Chrome
| and Firefox.
| marcodiego wrote:
| Did they release it? If it is not FLOSS, I wouldn't trust it.
| throwmeariver1 wrote:
| Yeah, sorry I believe it when I see it. That just reads like a
| fever dream especially when looking at the credentials of their
| 11 employees on LinkedIn and reading their "API" documentation.
| olah_1 wrote:
| They desperately need to rebrand if they hope to succeed.
|
| The knight helmet logo and the name are not appealing in the
| slightest to any normal person. The whole brand image just
| screams "edgelord".
| can16358p wrote:
| Don't know whether it succeeds or not, but we definitely need
| more projects like this supporting the decentralized Internet,
| especially dApps, for better adoption.
| [deleted]
| black7375 wrote:
| Among the P2P browsers, beaker looked pretty good.
|
| - https://beakerbrowser.com/
|
| Although their journey has stopped.
|
| - https://github.com/beakerbrowser/beaker/discussions/1944
| [deleted]
| anderber wrote:
| I loved Beaker Browser and I'm sad when it stopped being worked
| on. Such a great tech (and not crypto currency related P2P)!
| chaostheory wrote:
| Are all the features actually decentralized? If not, what's the
| point of X without Y if it's just another centralized service.
| ibz wrote:
| They say it's built on top of the Lightning Network, so yes.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| I was hoping this would be a browser with better
| IPFS/IPNS/Tor/I2P support, but sadly it's just another Bitcoin
| project. They seem to use IPFS, so that's nice, but the
| cryptocurrency side makes me very wary of this project.
| mike_d wrote:
| Transport (Tor) or somehow not using your protocol of choice
| was never the problem. The blocker to solving centralization
| has always been that people who browse HN suck at making things
| usable.
|
| Building a usable frontend first is never going to get you
| excited about a project, but the only way we are going to get
| mass adoption of decentralization is to make it as simple as
| TikTok or Chrome.
|
| I'm also sorry it is just "another bitcoin project." If you
| happen to have $20 million kicking around to fund the project
| so they don't have to depend on crypto, by all means reach out
| to them. Alternatively, use that big brain of yours to figure
| out a better way of funding a company that doesn't make money
| off its users.
| [deleted]
| Jonovono wrote:
| Just thought i'd jump in with a couple cool projects I have
| heard of recently that may interest you (i'm not affiliated in
| any way, just think they are cool):
|
| * https://agregore.mauve.moe
|
| * https://beakerbrowser.com
| cookiengineer wrote:
| Note that development of beakerbrowser has been dropped for a
| couple years now. The hyper/dat protocol fatigue is also in a
| heavily unstable state.
|
| Which kind of confirms the previous commenter's argument
| about all things crypto being about pump n' dump projects
| that get abandoned quickly after their coin offerings.
| olah_1 wrote:
| > The hyper/dat protocol fatigue is also in a heavily
| unstable state.
|
| What makes you say that? Hypercore just launched a major
| upgrade that includes multi-writer support.
|
| > Which kind of confirms the previous commenter's argument
| about all things crypto being about pump n' dump projects
| that get abandoned quickly after their coin offerings.
|
| Hypercore is not related to any coins. https://hypercore-
| protocol.org/
| cookiengineer wrote:
| > Hypercore just launched a major upgrade that includes
| multi-writer support
|
| Yes, where hypercore 8 is incompatible with hypercore 7's
| wireformat, kind of confirming my point.
| olah_1 wrote:
| I misread your first comment. I thought you meant that
| the project was dead haha.
| pfraze wrote:
| FWIW it wasn't a coin thing, we just couldn't make beaker
| into a product enough people wanted
| can16358p wrote:
| On the other hand, cryptocurrency side actually makes me
| _interested_ in the project.
| olah_1 wrote:
| Same. Because it allows for transparent business models.
| tomatowurst wrote:
| You are right to be wary, if there is a cryptocurrency element
| to a project I immediately stop paying attention because it is
| almost certainly geared towards inflating the token values
| through raising ridiculous amount of money.
|
| The people that come out to defend those projects almost
| certainly owns token. How is this not an unregistered security?
|
| There's a reason the Bitcoin developers:
|
| - were anonymous
|
| - released bitcoin _weeks_ after the ruling on e-gold
|
| - continues to remain anonymous
|
| They clearly knew the implication of e-gold and US security
| laws.
| smeej wrote:
| Consider reading the article.
|
| This is built _on_ Bitcoin. There is no other token.
| rmbyrro wrote:
| Would there be a better way to implement P2P payments without a
| cryptocurrency?
|
| The fact they're using Bitcoin, instead of Ethereum or another
| altcoin, is a positive for me.
| everdrive wrote:
| I don't want to implement P2P payments. I don't even know
| what this means. Does it just mean "sending someone money?"
| Why would I want that to be built into a browser? I'm a bit
| confused why this is being pushed.
| dfas23 wrote:
| uhm, to pay for things without using your credit card?
| omginternets wrote:
| I remember when web3 used to mean _opposing_ the de facto
| requirement to pay for the information. This goes against
| my principles.
| olah_1 wrote:
| Who creates/curates the information? They gotta eat...
| omginternets wrote:
| Not everything has to be commercial. And in fact, most of
| the good stuff -- e.g. HN comments -- are not commercial.
|
| I don't mind paying for certain things, but the crypto
| trend is very much pay to play.
| olah_1 wrote:
| > Not everything has to be commercial.
|
| HN comments aren't free to host though. There is compute
| involved. How are they paying for that compute?
|
| If it is out of boredom and good will, that's cool. But I
| very much am keeping that in mind when I comment here. I
| don't expect a hobby site to stay up long term because
| they'll just shut it down when it stops being fun.
|
| If HN is paying for this from advertisements and job
| postings, well there is your answer. It is commercial.
| barnabee wrote:
| You shouldn't necessarily want it built into the browser
| but you might want it built into the internet so that you
| can avoid the layers of fees, commissions and surveillance
| capitalism.
|
| For better or worse, for most people the browser is the
| internet right now.
| freedomben wrote:
| It means there's an easy way to "pay" for "premium" content
| in very small forms. Like "here's 15 cents for letting me
| read this article." No ads, no subscription and sending all
| your personal info, no email spam. I think if it works, it
| will change everything.
| bfdm wrote:
| There is no reason for that to be baked into the browser.
| That can absolutely be a cross-browser/platform layer
| that won't need to worry about dying as a walled garden
| with no visitors.
| smeej wrote:
| Lightning Network and Bitcoin are inherently
| interoperable.
|
| Just because one browser bakes it in, it doesn't mean the
| resources created are limited to being accessed through
| that browser.
| johnny22 wrote:
| I agree with you for the end product, but it seems like a
| fine idea to push integration as far as you can in the
| alpha phase to see what's necessary.
| Spivak wrote:
| I feel like this is overly idealistic, it will be $1.99
| with ads and personal info harvesting and spam. Why
| wouldn't you?
| freedomben wrote:
| I'm sure some will want to do that, sure. Especially the
| marketing driven blogs/sites.
|
| But they'll be competing against people that don't do
| that, so unless their content is _really really_ good and
| unique, they 'll lose in the market and either adapt or
| die. Maybe some mega celebrities could pull that off, but
| it would be pretty rare.
|
| I mean, they could easily be doing that right now. $1.99
| is high enough that the problem of micro payments isn't
| really a problem at that price. But they don't because it
| would be a terrible strategy...
| throwaway81523 wrote:
| > But they'll be competing against people that don't do
| that,
|
| That's already the case, yet there is no way to escape.
| We need to go back to browsers that don't take over our
| computer (harvest personal info etc).
| freedomben wrote:
| > That's already the case
|
| How is anybody accepting micro payments currently? What
| technology do they use?
| throwaway81523 wrote:
| I don't mean micropayments, I mean we have an ad infested
| surveillance web competing with an informative web, but
| because of how browsers work, the mere presence of
| informative sites doesn't much help escaping from the ads
| and surveillance. The problem is browsers enabling the
| surveillance and we should back away from that. Gemini
| had the right motivation, but made what I'd call newbie
| errors. I'd rather have something about like HTML3.
| didericis wrote:
| The closest thing to micropayments deployed at scale
| right now seems to be youtube superchats, which use
| traditional banking stuff.
|
| I believe there are people creating micropayment
| superchat like systems for crypto, but its difficult when
| its not integrated into the browser/not integrated into
| content as well as it is with youtube.
|
| Brave has a pretty cool tipping feature that I've used a
| handful of times, but it's not integrated into the user
| experience in a way that people actually use/very few
| people seem to know about it or use it.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| The cost for the average Bitcoin transaction is a lot
| higher than 15 cents. And likely to go higher as
| transaction fees make a higher and higher portion of
| miners' reward. The power use involved in mining "coin"
| does not simply pay for itself.
| freedomben wrote:
| no not for lightning network. fees right now are 1
| Satoshi or about $0.04 USD.
| leesalminen wrote:
| 1 Satoshi today is well under $0.01 USD. Maybe you meant
| $0.004 USD?
| drexlspivey wrote:
| it's actually worth $0.0004 USD or 0.04 cents
| didericis wrote:
| Lightning mitigates high transaction fees by pooling.
|
| I agree with long term concerns as block rewards
| decrease, though, which is why I prefer Monero's tail
| emission to Bitcoin's model.
|
| Part of the brilliance of block rewards is it actually
| _does_ pay for itself. Miners are rewarded for their
| efforts, and the reward amount varies based on the needs
| of the network.
|
| At least that's been true for the past decade, prior to
| getting towards the supply cap. It'll be extremely
| interesting to see how miners behave as the rewards
| decrease in reality vs in theory. My personal belief is
| that the lack of tail emission and resultant price
| increase will keep bitcoin alive indefinitely, but make
| it more and more static overtime, even with stuff like
| lightning, and turn it into a kind of reserve note. This
| is not a novel theory and is what many are seeing
| happening.
|
| I'm most bullish on Monero long term/think it's extremely
| under-appreciated as a viable means for the mind of
| decentralized uncensorable micro-transactions people in
| the space all fantasize about.
| andai wrote:
| Here's an interesting article from 2003 about
| microtransactions that argues the main issue is actually
| mental burden of paying for hundreds of tiny things every
| day, ie. "mental transaction costs". https://web.archive.
| org/web/20031202032448/http://www.shirky...
|
| The concept seems to first appear in Nick Szabo's paper
| in 1999:
|
| https://nakamotoinstitute.org/static/docs/micropayments-
| and-...
|
| Things like Brave's Basic Attention Token seem to solve
| this problem in the sense that it's completely automatic
| based on the amount of time spent on each site. But then
| you have to use Brave, and you have to use BAT...
|
| In my case, most of the money would go to YouTube, Reddit
| and HN. (I think Brave actually has a way to send the
| money to individual creators on a site rather than to the
| site itself. But I haven't used it personally.)
| zamadatix wrote:
| Why is it suddenly a requirement the browser also handle P2P
| payments in the first place?
| freedomben wrote:
| It's not a "requirement" but monetizing content is a really
| hard problem that hasn't been solved real well. The most
| common strategy is ads, but everybody involved (by that I
| mean the producer and the consumer of the content, not an
| unnecessary third part like ad sellers) hate that solution.
| There are some attempts like Medium and their subscription
| model and Brave's BAT. These solve the problem of "micro
| payments" but they still require a third party and they
| have significant limitations (especially that content
| providers don't have any say on "price"). Direct payments
| so far suffer from the "micro payments" issue in that small
| payments aren't feasible since credit card companies and
| other third parties take a non-trivial portion.
|
| So yeah, if a browser can fix this problem with P2P
| payments, that would be huge.
| rollcat wrote:
| Paying content creators is a very valid problem, however
| using proof of work in place of CC processor fees is just
| moving the problem around - and arguably, making it
| worse: you're essentially taking on environmental debt,
| which all of us will eventually have to pay down.
| joshcryer wrote:
| What "monetizing content via a crypto browser" really
| means is "voluntarily submitting yourself to this
| 'decentralized' control structure we have set up." Which,
| in the case of Bitcoin, is "controlled" by 5 mining pools
| at any given time, who are all, one way or another, going
| to have to submit to government control at some point in
| the future. Meanwhile the whole thing about
| "decentralized identifiers" is people using the system
| will be connecting to central data centers.
|
| As far as 'micropayments,' that is begging for a solution
| to a problem that doesn't exist. I'll give you an
| example. Netflix users watch about 100 hours of their
| service a month, for $15.59. So 15 cents an hour. There
| is no scenario in which Netflix benefits from creating a
| virtual currency in their system pegged at 15 cents an
| hour (think Flix-Bux), people are already pushing back
| hard on these internal 'currencies.' The irony is not
| lost on me the amount of energy used by smart dudes to
| create a browser that is proposing virtual currency which
| has been utilize to nickle and dime gamers from
| adolescence to adulthood (robux, vbucks, the plethroa of
| 'money sellers' on many platforms).
|
| Nothing about this is about freedom, this is all about
| changing one central control structure for another, with
| little crumbs of implication that it's better for users
| and sellers alike.
| zamadatix wrote:
| There are a lot of really hard problems and as big as
| fixing any such really hard problem would be the question
| is why this needs to be handled by the browser itself not
| why this would be a good problem to have solved.
| freedomben wrote:
| Well sure, it could be implemented without the browser,
| just like FTP and other things were back in the day
| before they got implemented in the browser (which made
| browsing an FTP server accessible to tons of people who
| didn't know how/why to use an FTP client), but it's a lot
| less user friendly. Instead of configuring your
| preferences or clicking an "approve" button or whatever,
| you have to provision yourself a wallet, click an "I want
| to pay $0.15 for this article", get the receiver's wallet
| address, copy it over to your wallet. Copy over a
| transaction ID, click send, wait for an email
| confirmation that includes the access code, copy paste
| that into the original article, and you're golden. Or all
| of that can just happen seamlessly in the background if
| the browser knows how to do it. Also, I don't see an
| average user _ever_ going through those hurdles, so
| probably the idea dies on the vine and we 'll end up
| stuck with ads or centralized subscription models for
| eternity.
|
| AFAIK they aren't advocating for the banning of other
| browsers (like Chrome), so if you don't want to use a
| browser that has support for that protocol, you can
| choose one that doesn't.
| [deleted]
| bromuro wrote:
| > It's not a "requirement" but monetizing content is a
| really hard problem that hasn't been solved real well.
|
| It's not a "really hard problem" - cryptocurrency is a
| solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist.
| bromuro wrote:
| > Would there be a better way to implement P2P payments
| without a cryptocurrency?
|
| Yes: to not implement them at all.
| powerslacker wrote:
| Can you elaborate?
| pmontra wrote:
| Not OP but why do I want payment implemented inside the
| browser?
| freedomben wrote:
| For this and sibling comment asking basically the same
| question, I typed an answer here that I hope is helpful:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30969911
| barnabee wrote:
| I don't know about you but I hate ads and like to pay for
| my content, I also don't see why I'd want to give money
| to intermediaries every time I pay for something.
|
| Why would I be against payments being built into browsers
| in a standardised and open source, open standards way if
| it might eventually solve those problems?
| blitzar wrote:
| > I don't know about you but I hate ads and like to pay
| for my content
|
| Since when has paying for content meant no ads?
|
| I pay for a newspaper - ads, I pay for cable tv - ads, I
| pay for the internet - ads, I pay road tax - ads, I go to
| the cinema - ads, I buy a ticket to a sporting event -
| ads.
|
| That is before we get to the influencer product placement
| world.
| robbedpeter wrote:
| You can get ad-free content. Things like substack,
| YouTube premium, Netflix, some newspapers, lots of
| patreon clients, etc.
|
| That ads still exist in other places where you've
| ostensibly paid for the content doesn't invalidate the
| op's preferences.
| z3c0 wrote:
| Personally, I don't understand why a browser needs
| payment functionality at all, P2P or not.
| rollcat wrote:
| I like Apple Pay support in Safari, and use it wherever
| it's available.
|
| I'm not a fan of cryptocurrencies by any measure, but I
| can understand why people would like that.
| beebeepka wrote:
| Care to explain what does it mean to have payment support
| in the browser. Not entirely sure what apple pay is
| bob55 wrote:
| drexlspivey wrote:
| How do P2P video calls work? For a 10 people call do you need
| N*(N-1)/2 = 45 connections? Do residential internet connections
| have that much upload bandwidth ?
| mhitza wrote:
| Skype used to be P2P before the Microsoft acquisition. HN tread
| when it was switched off
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3915479
|
| It offloaded routing to peers that had better
| hardware/bandwidth. The downside was that many people were not
| aware of that at the time, myself included, thus on some
| computers Skype would seemingly consume more resources than
| expected.
| dmitriid wrote:
| The reason wasn't Microsoft acquisition but the rise of
| mobile. P2P does not work well on mobile devices.
| labrador wrote:
| * Zoom, without Zoom. * Google Docs, without Google.
| * Medium, without Medium. * WhatsApp, without WhatsApp.
| * Payments, without banks. * Identity, without the state.
|
| A few quick points
|
| - The percentage of internet users who care that the above
| services are centralized is likely less than 1% and probably much
| less
|
| - If the open source movement is any indication, the percentage
| of people in that small group who want to pay to build such
| decentralized services is also very small
|
| - There is no mention of a moderation slash policing mechanism.
| The idea that "The State" will allow people to trade child porn
| or buy and sell ghost guns without interference is ludicrous
|
| My intuition tells me that there is a network law that hasn't
| been formulated yet that says that decentralized networks trend
| towards centralized super nodes when certain contraints and
| requirements are placed on the decentralized network (or maybe
| there is one and I haven't heard about it)
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| _> My intuition tells me that there is a network law that hasn
| 't been formulated yet that says that decentralized networks
| trend towards centralized super nodes when certain contraints
| and requirements are placed on the decentralized network (or
| maybe there is one and I haven't heard about it)_
|
| There's a generalized version, if not one specific to
| blockchains and cryptocurrencies: In complex, non-linear
| dynamic systems, the critical resources of the system tend to
| concentrate and consolidate over time, due to positive
| feedback, winner-take-all, and similar effects inherent in
| these systems. Decentralized systems are subject to these
| dynamics too, as we're seeing with both mining/validating
| concentration and ownership of the wealth in these systems.
|
| People are aware of the problem, but it's probably unsolvable,
| deterministically at least.
|
| In broader society, in the past, such trends have tended to
| eventually result in some kind of collapse or revolution
| (French, Bolshevik, etc). It's like there's a natural asymptote
| to the concentration of resources, that forces a (painful)
| reset once they become too concentrated.
| webmaven wrote:
| _> In complex, non-linear dynamic systems, the critical
| resources of the system tend to concentrate and consolidate
| over time, due to positive feedback, winner-take-all, and
| similar effects inherent in these systems. Decentralized
| systems are subject to these dynamics too,_
|
| I've come across various essays and posts that make this
| point tangentially, but not much that investigates it
| directly. If you are aware of any, links would be
| appreciated.
|
| _> It's like there's a natural asymptote to the
| concentration of resources, that forces a (painful) reset
| once they become too concentrated._
|
| Likewise, if you know of work to determine how concentrated
| is _too_ concentrated, that would be interesting.
| neilk wrote:
| You just described a business model for startups. And likely
| this startup!
|
| Any decentralized network will create abundance, but also all
| the problems of abundance - identity, filtering, search,
| stability, etc. Some trusted gateways or intermediaries are
| then created to solve those problems. And then we're in a race
| to get a monopoly, one that well-capitalized startups can win.
|
| A "browser" is a play to control or at least have influence
| over all of these experiences, just like IE was for Microsoft
| or Chrome is for Google.
| [deleted]
| rvz wrote:
| Not to be confused by: https://impervious.com creators of another
| browser called Beacon. [0]
|
| As for this, Lightning is not even Bitcoin, so what is the point
| of even mentioning 'decentralization'? Lightning is known to be
| significantly (and growing to be) more centralized and defeats
| the whole point of it all since there is a relentless push for
| people to use that instead of using Bitcoin on-chain. Lightning's
| centralization is inevitable.
|
| Hence this, does that also mean Bitcoin has failed in its
| original purpose if everyone is going to use Lightning?
|
| [0] https://impervious.com/beacon
| haswell wrote:
| Given the similarities (they're both browsers, both focused on
| decentralization, etc) it seems like a pretty major naming
| conflict. Very confusing.
| bongodrum wrote:
| And we have uninformed comments on Lightning Network (LN - have
| you ever tried to run on its own? As Elizabeth Stark said
| Friday - "LN has its own native token called sats and it will
| be work stacking some"! Education is critical
| bongodrum wrote:
| And FUD - try running Lightning Network (LN) separate from
| Bitcoin - it's called a NETWORK, not token / shitcoin!
|
| As Elizabeth Stark Said Friday: "LN has its own native token
| called sats, and it's maybe just worth stacking some"!
| jccalhoun wrote:
| All of these "X without X" claims seem to be misleading. I
| thought it was actually able to communicate to people using zoom
| but it looks like it is just their own conferencing software and
| so on?
| DoItToMe81 wrote:
| Is this another Chromium fork?
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| Sounds more like it's going to be: _browser, without the ease of
| use_
| [deleted]
| mftb wrote:
| Keep your marketing, just show us the code.
| al2o3cr wrote:
| What's the business model? A "traditional finance" version of
| this would likely be aiming to get lots of transactions it could
| extract a couple basis points out of, but that seems impossible
| with a p2p architecture.
|
| All those "MSCS required, PhD preferred" hires they're making
| ain't working for free...
| TeeMassive wrote:
| As with all these initiatives, I salute them and morally support
| their development. However how do I go installing it and start
| using it right away like very other piece of software I use? If
| I, a tech savvy guy, can't do it, then how do I even tell my
| normie friends how to use it?
| root_axis wrote:
| An interesting concept in theory, minus the cryptocurrency
| nonsense. Unfortunately, a browser is already a pretty ambitious
| project even using an open source engine, adding in a gigantic
| bespoke productivity suite on top of it is a massive undertaking
| - it's a certainty that this software is going to suck _hard_
| compared to the alternatives, but... maybe an MVP is enough to
| gain traction, if they have a shitton of funding and the project
| stays alive it might be worthwhile with a few years of
| engineering time.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-09 23:00 UTC)