3 ms·

All IPFS needs is less install friction. The local IPFS server packaged as a chrome extension is what is keeping it back: https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/ipf

• hoschicz 9y ago
  TLDR: What's keeping it back is Web standards. Extensions cannot initiate TCP connections and there is no IPFS network made of (possibly hybrid -- both protocols) nodes that are able to use WebSockets instead of TCP. The js-ipfs daemon can only fully run on Node.js where it has access to real UDP/TCP sockets. (I don't see this as a clear proclamation in their readme, so don't take this for granted)
  • diggan 9y ago
    > The js-ipfs daemon can only fully run on Node.js Not sure what "fully" refers to here, but js-ipfs in the browser can fetch/add content like a normal IPFS node via either websockets or webrtc. Although, TCP connections would make a lot of things, a lot more efficient and nicer.
• diggan 9y ago
  IPFS is really trivial to install in most OSes and distributions. If you don't want to run it as a daemon via terminal/systemd/whatever, you can either run the browser extension together with ipfs-desktop and it's GUIs all the way down. https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/ipfs-desktop/ https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/ipfs-desktop/
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• book_mentioned 9y ago
  Interesting to consider WebTorrent vs. BitTorrent in this context; BitTorrent has grown much closer to mainstream but WebTorrent doesn't seem to be growing.