all 26 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 49 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Sounds like I2P without the privacy.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 9 months ago

    So it makes a swarm and distributes pieces of the site all over the internet. Theoretically, the original peer can go down and the site keeps running.

    Thats not how i2p works. I2p works in a different way and solves a different problem.

    However, i2p CAN torrent so technically you could stack this technology in top of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 63 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    no source code

    no paper

    no open protocol definition

    full of emojis

    LMAO

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 9 months ago

    I am sorry but this is so clearly vibe coded and lazily, i would not trust the security of that thing one second...

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago* (5 children)

    A question: can you modify the site (edit its content etc.) once it's published?

    Because the uses for a never-changing site are quite limited.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Also, the content is statically-generated only, I guess? No server-side rendering? No POSTing, etc? Or...is this creating some cache based on a real server it contacts...?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 9 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Server side rendering includes showing a list of 10 elements in a catalog of 10K elements. Do you really want to transfer all the catalog to each client every time?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Who says I'm a "web guy". It's only that a server has its uses and a client has its uses. Sending all the DB to the client is as bad as streaming an FPS from a server.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    How it that different from IPFS? ipfs.tech

    Or even better Veilid?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago*

    Not too different vs IPFS, essentially the IPFS network if it was using WebTorrent. Both rely on swarms of p2p users/servers to seed/pin data to keep it online.

    I'm not too familiar with Veilid but that does seem different since it's built for privacy so I doubt all the peers are public in that scenario. There is nothing private about IPFS or WebTorrent, all peer IP addresses are public in their respective swarms.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Might be because I'm on Ironfox maybe but it just stays on connecting to peers for me with nothing else happening. So yeah not one for me.

  • source
  • [+] -22 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 34 points 9 months ago

    Not really. Decentralized does not mean anonymous.. and I doubt people sharing that type of content are doing it publicly with their public IP addresses.

    Looks like PeerWeb uses WebTorrent - so that means every single IP address serving the website is easily found in the peer list of the torrent swarm. Nothing anonymous about this.

  • source
  • parent