6 ms·

Web2Web: Serverless Websites Powered by Torrents and Bitcoin

102 points by fraqed 10y ago

akerro 10y ago
Does it share the same weakness at zeroNet - maximum allowed size of a webpage (100MB)?
- ayyn0n0n0 10y ago
  Why in the heck would you want a webpage to be 100mb+ ?! I wouldn't say that is a weakness, you want your webpages to be as small as possible.
  - bruno2223 10y ago
    +1
    - quirkafleeg 10y ago
      There's an up arrow next to usernames.
  - akerro 10y ago
    > Why in the heck would you want a webpage to be 100mb+ ?! Websites have scripts, images, videos, ads, text. Image + thumbnail = 1MB, gallery of images = 15MB, 600 posts with images, thumbnails, comments with avatars = ... ? My wordpress blog started in 2010 with images, thumbnails is 5GB, last time I checked in July.
    - ClassyJacket 10y ago
      But 100MB per page is ridiculous, expect for embedded videos. I'd be waiting two minutes for each page to load.
      - akerro 10y ago
        In the top comment by webpage I meant a blog. I wanted to publish my blog on zeroNet, but I can do it only when I remove all images, which misses the point of my blog.
      - haggy 10y ago
        Also keep in mind that this isn't a traditional Request/Response model. Much (if not all) of a "website" must be downloaded up front via the torrent network, and then run locally. 100MB per request on a traditional site is ridiculous but 100MB for downloading 1 very large web app from the torrent network is not so crazy.
    - ayyn0n0n0 10y ago
      >600 posts with images, thumbnails, comments with avatars = This is not all on ONE page >My wordpress blog started in 2010 with images, thumbnails is 5GB, last time I checked in July. Again, that is the size of your database, not webpage.
- kordless 10y ago
  Go look in the code and quit asking second thought questions that chew up other's resources.
  - almost 10y ago
    There's really no need to respond so snappily to simple questions like that. Even if it were unacceptable to ask a question that could be answered by reading the source code (and I think most would say that's fine) it still wouldn't be ok to be so rude.
    - kordless 10y ago
      Observationally, I'm 100% accurate in my statements. Someone asking a question like this has little intent to know the actual answer and raises doubt in those who do not have intent to know the answer. It's a recursive pattern that is wasteful. My karma burning is of little significance compared to unbounded criticism that comes in by way of ignorance. It is wasteful to ask leading questions, and it pollutes the discussion here. HN reacts negatively to "reddit" like comments, so I see little reason why we can't start reacting negatively to people who ask leading questions that are actually veiled blaming statements. It increases the trust of the comments and decreases the extra workloads having to parse people's illogical comments.
- diegorbaquero 10y ago
  No, WebTorrent easily handles 500MB+ torrents. (I'm a WebTorrent collaborator)
- thatcat 10y ago
  There's no limit on zer0net, if you pull the hovering 0 in the top right corner to the left with your mouse there is a menu where you can set the limit to whatever you want - or if any website wants to use more a dialogue pop up will ask you if you want to reset.
diegorbaquero 10y ago
This post killed BTorrent's tracker. It's back up now.
striking 10y ago
Two things: First, how much BTC needs to be deposited per update? Second, this doesn't provide a solution for anonymization, does it?
tadeegan 10y ago
When I looked into it, webtorrent still requires a centralized server to at the very least set up the peer to peer connection. The problem is that there isnt a way to avoid this with WebRTC. It also serves content to the initial peer. How is this serverless? Am I missing something?
- callesgg 10y ago
  I am with you.
- d33 10y ago
  https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/API/WebRTC/Peer-to-peer_communications_with_WebRTC https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/API/WebRT...
- johnhenry 10y ago
  While the infohash is stored in the blockchain, the other immediate issues is that to get the infohash, you still need to connect to a centralized third-party such as blockexplorer.com. Browsers don't natively support TCP, which is how normal torrent and blockchain clients connect to each other. WebRTC is a workaround for torrents, but there doesn't seem to be a workaround for blockchains If we want true serverless architecture within browsers, we, at least, need browsers that support TCP connections.
  - roblabla 10y ago
    What features of TCP would allow serverless connections ? AFAIK, even BitTorrent (DHT) and others connect to a centralized "super-node" which then gives them other nodes to connect to.
    - lgats 10y ago
      If you look long enough you can find an open TCP connection to another client who has the infohash you are looking for—wirhout ever getting the other clients ip from a central server.
    - 10y ago
flaviuspopan 10y ago
This is a really fascinating concept - in reality there's no reason this needs to be anchored to bitcoin, only a blockchain for hash verification. Maybe another blockchain can be used that wouldn't charge transaction fees for updating or registering? Also, this feels a little similar in ideology to ethereum swarm (http://swarm-gateways.net/bzz:/swarm/ http://swarm-gateways.net/bzz:/swarm/).
fulafel 10y ago
WebRTC does not need a centralised server. It can benefit from servers that can lead together NAT or firewall victims but these don't have to be centralised.
dharma1 10y ago
How much redundancy is there to protect against DDoS?

102 points by fraqed 10y ago

akerro 10y ago

Does it share the same weakness at zeroNet - maximum allowed size of a webpage (100MB)?

ayyn0n0n0 10y ago
Why in the heck would you want a webpage to be 100mb+ ?! I wouldn't say that is a weakness, you want your webpages to be as small as possible.
- bruno2223 10y ago
  +1
  - quirkafleeg 10y ago
    There's an up arrow next to usernames.
- akerro 10y ago
  > Why in the heck would you want a webpage to be 100mb+ ?! Websites have scripts, images, videos, ads, text. Image + thumbnail = 1MB, gallery of images = 15MB, 600 posts with images, thumbnails, comments with avatars = ... ? My wordpress blog started in 2010 with images, thumbnails is 5GB, last time I checked in July.
  - ClassyJacket 10y ago
    But 100MB per page is ridiculous, expect for embedded videos. I'd be waiting two minutes for each page to load.
    - akerro 10y ago
      In the top comment by webpage I meant a blog. I wanted to publish my blog on zeroNet, but I can do it only when I remove all images, which misses the point of my blog.
    - haggy 10y ago
      Also keep in mind that this isn't a traditional Request/Response model. Much (if not all) of a "website" must be downloaded up front via the torrent network, and then run locally. 100MB per request on a traditional site is ridiculous but 100MB for downloading 1 very large web app from the torrent network is not so crazy.
  - ayyn0n0n0 10y ago
    >600 posts with images, thumbnails, comments with avatars = This is not all on ONE page >My wordpress blog started in 2010 with images, thumbnails is 5GB, last time I checked in July. Again, that is the size of your database, not webpage.
kordless 10y ago
Go look in the code and quit asking second thought questions that chew up other's resources.
- almost 10y ago
  There's really no need to respond so snappily to simple questions like that. Even if it were unacceptable to ask a question that could be answered by reading the source code (and I think most would say that's fine) it still wouldn't be ok to be so rude.
  - kordless 10y ago
    Observationally, I'm 100% accurate in my statements. Someone asking a question like this has little intent to know the actual answer and raises doubt in those who do not have intent to know the answer. It's a recursive pattern that is wasteful. My karma burning is of little significance compared to unbounded criticism that comes in by way of ignorance. It is wasteful to ask leading questions, and it pollutes the discussion here. HN reacts negatively to "reddit" like comments, so I see little reason why we can't start reacting negatively to people who ask leading questions that are actually veiled blaming statements. It increases the trust of the comments and decreases the extra workloads having to parse people's illogical comments.
diegorbaquero 10y ago
No, WebTorrent easily handles 500MB+ torrents. (I'm a WebTorrent collaborator)
thatcat 10y ago
There's no limit on zer0net, if you pull the hovering 0 in the top right corner to the left with your mouse there is a menu where you can set the limit to whatever you want - or if any website wants to use more a dialogue pop up will ask you if you want to reset.

diegorbaquero 10y ago

This post killed BTorrent's tracker. It's back up now.

striking 10y ago

Two things: First, how much BTC needs to be deposited per update? Second, this doesn't provide a solution for anonymization, does it?

tadeegan 10y ago

When I looked into it, webtorrent still requires a centralized server to at the very least set up the peer to peer connection. The problem is that there isnt a way to avoid this with WebRTC. It also serves content to the initial peer. How is this serverless? Am I missing something?

callesgg 10y ago
I am with you.
d33 10y ago
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/API/WebRTC/Peer-to-peer_communications_with_WebRTC https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/API/WebRT...
johnhenry 10y ago
While the infohash is stored in the blockchain, the other immediate issues is that to get the infohash, you still need to connect to a centralized third-party such as blockexplorer.com. Browsers don't natively support TCP, which is how normal torrent and blockchain clients connect to each other. WebRTC is a workaround for torrents, but there doesn't seem to be a workaround for blockchains If we want true serverless architecture within browsers, we, at least, need browsers that support TCP connections.
- roblabla 10y ago
  What features of TCP would allow serverless connections ? AFAIK, even BitTorrent (DHT) and others connect to a centralized "super-node" which then gives them other nodes to connect to.
  - lgats 10y ago
    If you look long enough you can find an open TCP connection to another client who has the infohash you are looking for—wirhout ever getting the other clients ip from a central server.
  - 10y ago

flaviuspopan 10y ago

This is a really fascinating concept - in reality there's no reason this needs to be anchored to bitcoin, only a blockchain for hash verification. Maybe another blockchain can be used that wouldn't charge transaction fees for updating or registering? Also, this feels a little similar in ideology to ethereum swarm (http://swarm-gateways.net/bzz:/swarm/ http://swarm-gateways.net/bzz:/swarm/).

fulafel 10y ago

WebRTC does not need a centralised server. It can benefit from servers that can lead together NAT or firewall victims but these don't have to be centralised.

dharma1 10y ago

How much redundancy is there to protect against DDoS?