Looks great! Does it work on Windows please?
Curious too. Let me know if you try it out. Technically I think it should work.
Readit Newsvolaski commented on Dalai: Automatically install, run, and play with LLaMA on your computer cocktailpeanut.github.io/... · Posted by u/cocktailpeanut
In John wick, they use commodore computer and dial phones for security purposes, reminds me of that :)
volaski commented on Vapor – Decentralized Web over Bitcoinized HTTP vapor.network/... · Posted by u/vapormache
volaski commented on Vapor – Decentralized Web over Bitcoinized HTTP vapor.network/... · Posted by u/vapormache
> "trustlessly replicated to other Vapor nodes"
Instead of using central web servers, it is replaced with a network of Vapor nodes. I don't see this solving any problem. Just because HTTP requests have a Bitcoin signature, that does not solve any web-of-trust issues.
> record authenticated HTTP requests and replay them anywhere.
This is confusing, either identities cost real Bitcoin or you have a Sybil attack problem (numerous fake identities). If you need real Bitcoins, it requires lots of effort to use Vapor. As it is written, this is not going to work.
Maybe wallets can implement an identity system (either as a standard or through federation among vapor nodes)?
volaski commented on Vapor – Decentralized Web over Bitcoinized HTTP vapor.network/... · Posted by u/vapormache
> Until now, it has been impossible to "record" and replay authenticated HTTP requests outside of a single service provider because authentication by nature has been centralized--Your identity belonged to the service provider.
>
> By "Bitcoinizing" HTTP requests and adopting the decentralized authentication scheme using Bitcoin wallet signatures, Vapor makes it possible to record authenticated HTTP requests and replay them anywhere.
<= Now this sounds WAY cool.
wow, trying to wrap my head around this thing. how does this exactly work?
volaski commented on Bottle: A Bitcoin SV Browser bottle.bitdb.network/... · Posted by u/christopherbalz
Certainly an interesting idea, but I think you're raising the barrier to entry by not simply implementing this as a browser extension. By having to develop a completely separate browser you're wasting a lot of time and resources that could otherwise be used to achieve the goals of the project.
I also seriously doubt the willingness of most people to install yet another battery-guzzling Electron app.
According to the website:
Why a standalone browser instead of building as an extension for existing browsers, or waiting for mainstream browser support?
1. Build for the future
Many things we take for granted in the old "web browsing" experience--including the security model--no longer apply in the new world of Bitcoin.
The thing is, Bitcoin is NOT "the next web". In many ways it's completely opposite of what the WWW is, which is why Bitcoin is so powerful.
That's why it's more beneficial to start from scratch instead of forking an existing full-fledged browser built for the existing WWW, with many legacy features that can constrain future directions. We can create a new user interaction model optimized for the new Bitcoin world order.
2. Bitcoin-Native
Bitcoin has a fundamentally different architecture than the old web in many different ways, with built-in immutability, a self-contained authentication model, and natively monetizable/traceable files.
Instead of thinking from the old WWW mindset, we should think from a Bitcoin-native mindset.
Bottle can discipline us to publish Bitcoin-first documents, build Bitcoin-first apps, each interconnected to one another in Bitcoin-native ways.
"The reason why your advice is not as useful as you think is because chances are, if you google around, most of that lesson would be already out there. Don't take this the wrong way I mean no offense. I'm sure you've learned a lot of lessons and I'm sure they're all valuable lessons, just saying most of what I read online nowadays are basically rehash of what these failed entrepreneurs heard from someone else, who probably heard it from some other successful person."
I don't take offense, but you're wrong. You have no idea what kind of advice or knowledge I have, but you're jumping to the conclusion that you've heard it all before.
This thread is extremely off-topic, and it feels silly to try to convince someone to listen to other people, so this will be my last post. Good luck.
As someone who tries to position oneself as someone with all the wisdom in the world, you sure are acting immature, closing your statement with "okthxbye" type comment.
Also, "You're wrong" is not such a mature way to engage in a conversation, and yet that's exactly how you start every comment you posted here. Could have been a productive conversation if you acted maturely.
And even though I said no offense and clearly meant it in a generic manner (and not attacking YOU), you actually sound very offended. Why are you so offended by some random guy on the Internet?
But I guess I'll never get an answer, since you're probably a man of your words and keep your promise to keep that last comment your last post :)
>>people running successful startups don't have time to write about it
This is both offensive and incorrect. Offensive because it implies that if someone manages to find the time to write about how they are running their company they probably aren’t successful. Incorrect because the startup world is in fact full of leaders who do manage to find the time to write about how they run their companies (kalzameus comes to mind).
it's offensive only because you choose to be offended, it actually tells more about yourself than parent.
> people running successful startups don't have time to write about it, while people who have wound down their companies do
tell us what kind of mental gymnastics you have to go through to go from above statement to come up with such a twisted interpretation as "it implies that if someone manages to find the time to write about how they're running their company they probably aren’t successful". Since it's HN, I'm sure you can show how you came to that conclusion, in logical expression.