4 ms·
Fun! I wish WebTorrent had caught on more. I've always thought it had a worthy place in the modern P2P conversation. In 2020, I messed around with a PoC for wh
by xd1936 9mo ago
Fun! I wish WebTorrent had caught on more. I've always thought it had a worthy place in the modern P2P conversation.
In 2020, I messed around with a PoC for what hosting and distributing Linux distros could look like using WebTorrent[1]. The protocol project as a whole has a lovely and brilliant design but has stayed mostly stagnant in recent years. There are only a couple of WebRTC-enabled torrent trackers that have remained active and stable.
1. https://github.com/leoherzog/LinuxExchange https://github.com/leoherzog/LinuxExchange
- cranberryturkey 9mo agohttp://bittorrented.com http://bittorrented.com
- xd1936 9mo agoOh wow
- palata 9mo agoI had never heard of this! Pretty cool!
- FireInsight 9mo agoCan't seem to find any mentions of this online from over a week ago, not much commentary either, mostly stuff that smells like advertising / astroturfing. Hmm...
- cranberryturkey 9mo agohuh?
- r14c 9mo agoI think the issue has generally been that web torrent doesn't work enough like the real thing to do its job properly. There are huge bit torrent based streaming media networks out there, illicit, sure, but its a proven technology. If browsers had real torrent clients we would be having a very different conversation imo I don't remember the web torrent issue numbers off the top of my head, but there are a number of long standing issues that seem blocked on webrtc limitations.
- embedding-shape 9mo agoI think we still have the same blocker as we had back when WebTorrent first appeared; browsers cannot be real torrent clients and open connections without some initial routing for the discovery, and they cannot open bi-directional unordered connections between two browsers. If we could say do peer discovery via Bluetooth, and open sockets directly from a browser page, we could in theory have local-first websites running in the browser, that does P2P connections straight between browsers.
- Seattle3503 9mo agoIf a tracker could be connected to via WebRTC and had additional STUN functionality, would that suffice? Are there additional WebRTC limitations? > they cannot open bi-directional unordered connections between two browsers. Last I checked, DataChannels were bidirectional
- embedding-shape 9mo agoYes, but it's STUN that sucks. If the software ships with a public (on the internet) relay/STUN server for connecting the two clients, it won't work if either aren't connected to the internet, even though the clients could still be on the same network and reach each other.
- jychang 9mo agoThat seems like a nonissue for the purposes of this discussion though, in terms of user uptake. Tiktok and Facebook and other websites aren't exactly focused on serving to people on the same network.
- westurner 9mo ago/? STUN: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=stun&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... There is a Native Sockets spec draft that only Chrome implements; "Direct Sockets API": https://developer.chrome.com/docs/iwa/direct-sockets https://developer.chrome.com/docs/iwa/direct-sockets : > The Direct Sockets API addresses this limitation by enabling Isolated Web Apps (IWAs) to establish direct TCP and UDP connections without a relay server. With IWAs, thanks to additional security measures—such as strict Content Security Policy (CSP) and cross-origin isolation— this API can be safely exposed. Though there's UPNP XML, it lacks auth for port forwarding permissions. There's also IPV6. Similar: "Breaking the QR Limit: The Discovery of a Serverless WebRTC Protocol – Magarcia" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46829296 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46829296 re: Quick Share, Wi-Fi Direct, Wi-Fi Aware, BLE Beacons, BSSIDs and the Geolocation API
- bluedino 9mo agoWas there ever a web-based Jigdo?
- xd1936 8mo agoThis was a fun rabbit hole. Thanks for educating me!