I am sure that a lot more needs to be done, but a lot of it could not get done until this happened. Read all about it.
Brave Adds Direct Peer to Peer Capablities to Browser
Sounds exciting! But what can you do with it (for example)?
The most interesting use of this would be to use it as a CDN for static content to reduce load on webservers.
There are two problems with this, though:
- That is already largely a solved problem
- It would be slower than existing solutions
I find it likely that people will start trying to host illegal content on it and there will be a moral panic that either shuts the project down or causes a censorship mechanism to be invented within IPFS (the very problem this was intended to solve).
While a step in the right direction, IPFS does not provide enough features to write an actual application.
IPFS is not a good place to host illegal content since it is not anonymous. At least in theory, it is possible to find which peer and which ip address has any particular content pinned.
Although there has been some criticism, Brave is definitely heading in the right direction. It's good to have a privacy oriented competitor to Firefox.
I am confused. One of the main, if not THE main reason for decentralization is to prevent censorship. Some comments in the above posts concern me. community_man states the following:
"i happen to be on Brave and LBRY and can tell you that the job of censoring falls into the hands of those who are reviewing the contents. This includes blocking, reporting to authorities the very same way if you saw someone dealing in drugs would be reported by anyone who sees it, except in this case it is a lot easier to do, just click on the report button."
"In the future it can be used for paying node operators and allow community based moderation of search results and banning illegal sites by millions of users to keep it open, fair, and honest."
Why would anyone need to review content in a decentralized system?
There is no place for "authorities" in a decentralized system.
The whole point of decentralization is so nobody gets to decide what is "open, fair, and honest".
You either want censorship - or you don't. There is no middle ground.
Thanks, it was interesting to read our thoughts. I want to add that there are several security features worth highlighting in Brave, such as the automatic refresh of the HTTPS connection (which you can add to Firefox support through an extension). The bottom line is that even though Brave's Basic Attention Token revenue model might be overwhelming for many users, in general the Brave and Firefox browsers have different ways to browse safely and privately.