3 ms·

I think it deserves it's own protocol nightweb:// . Will also make it easier for th iOS port later ;)

• ge0rg 14y ago
  Using a nightweb.net http url on the other hand would allow a read-only web access to the service, increasing conversion rates ;)
  • DoubleMalt 14y ago
    But it would undermine the "distributedness". Maybe Nightweb could serve a website on the device itself and one could use pagekite or a dynamic dns to serve it.
    • pudquick 14y ago
      There's no reason a third party couldn't host a read-only view into Nightweb, performing something similar to tor2web.org. The third party would be running their own Nightweb client, then visitors to the website would trigger content downloads on the client, rendered out as a webpage. This would provide the "public view" without sacrificing the decentralized nature.
      • synctext 14y ago
        Great idea. In fact, this type of functionality is hopefuly becoming an Internet Standard: http://www.internetsociety.org/articles/moving-toward-censorship-free-internet http://www.internetsociety.org/articles/moving-toward-censor... However, Bittorrent is not up to the task, due to NAT issues. UDP NAT puncturing is not present in this stack, right? Thus how is it going through carrier-grade NATs which block all these smartphones? Disclaimer: working on a similar thing for years Tribler Mobile.
    • ge0rg 14y ago
      First, the website would only be meant for users without the app, so local hosting would not work. Second, it can only be read-only, unless you upload your private key. I think it would provide a window into the social network, kind of "Oscar is using this, join him now by downloading the app!" The implication I see is privacy of people clicking a user link, but the problem already exists now.