Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Show HN: This page exists only if someone is looking at it (durazo.us)
803 points by losvedir on May 12, 2015 | hide | past | favorite | 165 comments

Author here. Amusingly, I wanted to link to the HN discussion on the page, but couldn't figure out how to... I don't think it's possible! Something I hadn't considered until just now with a content addressable web is there are no cycles in the links.

Edit: Another amusing anecdote. I've been following this on log2viz (the heroku realtime performance monitoring tool), and was aghast to see high response times and memory usage. Then I realized I was actually looking at the dashboard for one of my rails apps! Phoenix is sitting pretty at about 35MB memory usage, and a median response time of 5ms, so far.

I once solved a similar problem by creating a link at tinyurl and then updating that link to point to whatever the name of my uploaded file had become :)

Well, the site already uses DNS as an escape hatch for getting a pointer to content, so setting up a http-redirector might be a good idea...

This is a problem that Freenet solved a long time ago. It means you need public-key cryptography rather than hashes for security, but they support updating pages--and, of course, any and all leaf content can still use hashes for better cacheability.

Do you know about WebRTC and Webtorrent? You can do this even without a relay server. Just browser-to-browser.

It's worth noting that WebRTC still requires a server of SOME sort -- typically you want a "signaling" server, and you need at least a STUN server to pierce firewalls, though the latter can be found for free.

And some corporate networks are too restrictive to be pierced by STUN, which means you need a TURN server, which is a relay server.

But yes, 98% of the time, WebRTC can go directly browser to browser. As long as neither browser is Internet Explorer. Sigh.

These guys have an open source plugin that allows IE to join the webRTC party.


This library they also have makes WebRTC cross browser compatible.


> As long as neither browser is Internet Explorer. Sigh.

If all popular torrent sites moved to in-browser downloads over WebRTC, virtually everybody would move away from IE :)

I never knew about STUN, this solves so many problems I've had. Thanks.

Is it even possible to open a socket from a browser to another browser directly? I was under the impression that was restricted for security reasons (websites becoming botnets and such).

I think you are correct, this appears to require a sever side element, I assume you don't have any real proof of deletion with something like this.

I have just written a library to make building something similar over webrtc easy: https://github.com/charlieschwabacher/ultrawave

An idea to make this(and the editable content suggestion in another comment) possible could be to add something to the protocol to define "previous versions" sha hashes. If you want to edit a page then create a new page which includes the sha hash of the previous versions. If you get a request for the content of a sha hash of an old version, you could suggest your sha hash as an updated version.

Or just send a new piece of content with the same ID and hope that it will win. But seriously, just a new created date. Same ID.

ID is a hash of the content so that's not possible unless you find a hash collision (highly unlikely with sha256).

Hmm, ok, but that is just an implementation detail. I just see a really simlple service here that could become really beautiful if one could manipulate the content, once it is in your browser, so the next time it is passed along, it will have evolved. Into what? I don't know. But what if I seeded the system with an image, a simple drawing or a shape, vector or whatever, and then just sat back, observed how other people took it further. Like graffiti. Forking of content could be insteresting. Or a github, but a peer-to-peer version?

This is a really cool idea.

Implement it as a merkle tree so that you can reference parents and know it will only evolve forward.

Doesn't git use hashes also? The old hash could redirect to the new "commit" hash, keeping the cycle and allowing for updates at the same time. One of those updates could be the page "changelog".

Yes, git does use hashes, but git similarly doesn't work in that manner for the same reason. Git commits can only point to commits in the past and not future commits. It is not possible to update old commits like you suggest.

The HEAD of a repository is like a pointer to the hash of a commit. You may think of HEAD like a repointable alias. `cat .git/refs/heads/master` in any of your git repositories to see what I mean.

> Git commits can only point to commits in the past and not future commits.

Not true! With git time-travel, you can refer to a future commits in the commit message. Eg:

    $ git log --oneline HEAD~2..HEAD
    9428c8c I am the child
    cdd3ab5 I am the parent of 9428c8 


Ha, that's a clever little tool!

For anyone curious, this uses the same idea as the "guess-and-check" approach spullara mentioned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=953569

It changes the content of the commit (by iterating the hash in the commit message itself) until the hash of the child commit matches. A big part of the trick is that it only looks at a prefix of the hash, so the search space is much smaller than the full SHA1 hash.

I just used firebug to alter the page in my browser. I changed the first heading from "This page exists only if someone is looking at it" to "What happens if I use Firebug to alter this page in-situ. Do I end up with malware?".

Will this change propagate? Has anyone yet seen this modified page in their own browser?


From the original page: "The server double checks the hash of the content it gets and then passes it along to the new person." I guess the answer is that the change won't propagate?

Correct, the change won't propagate for the reasons you say. (See source [0]). Also, though, note that the content comes to you as a blob of JSON, which gets rendered into your page, and you respond to future content requests with that blob of JSON, rather than the HTML itself.

[0] https://github.com/losvedir/ephemeral2/blob/master/web/chann...

Thanks for the explanation.

I found this line amusing.

>and you shouldn't be trusting me any more than any other random internet person.

Because I did trust you more than most other random internet persons, I trusted your javascript by temporarily whitelisting it in my browser to view the contents. :)

Are you able to adjust the url of the HN submission? I don't feel like creating one just to check, but that makes it easy to link the discussion, create the discussion before the page.

It seems ID's are assigned sequentially, so by timing your submission you should be able to get a predictable url.

No, but that would be the way to do it, for sure. There's a link to "edit" my submission, but the form it takes me to only allows updating the title. It displays the URL as ordinary text, rather than a text input.

We'll change the URL for you if you like.

I guess you'll need a fixed URL that redirects to the HN submission.

Ok I am at a loss here. Why can't you link this discussion on that page?

The web-pages are recognized by their hash, so you can't change them after you setup the page. The problem is that you would have to supply HN with the link to the page, and then go back and edit the page to include the link to the new HN article. Since you can't go back and edit the page, you can't include the link.

the hash is a hash of the content itself, so the link is immutable - if you changed the content the link wouldn't be pointing to the same thing anymore.

Changing the contents changes the hash and the hash is used in the url

Would a page be able to leave and come back into the network by having a computer that's offline but viewing the page and then comes back? i.e. is there anything to prevent it?

im not 100% sure how this all fits together, but you should be able to recreate a page, so long as the content was exactly the same, and therefor produced the same hash.

So you could set it up to automatically recreate the page when your machine comes back online.

is that what you meant?

Not quite but I assumed similarly. I'm wondering if it'll connect to the peers automatically after coming back online if just left in the browser. If it did then it'd be possible to keep a page unpublished except when asked for through another channel. It's definitely a really interesting idea to play with. It makes me wonder if it could be used to create a nicer interface for things like Freenet by doing more clientside these days.

I've actually seen people successfully get a tweet to link to itself through trial and error. You can try and guess the IDs and you will eventually get it right.

It's great! Will the client complain if it receives content that doesn't hash from a malicious client?

You'd have to be able to generate some pretty fantastically unique hash collisions!

Interesting to watch Gmail reading along…

Send the link with the hash using your gmail account, stay tuned at the corresponding page on http://ephemeralp2p.durazo.us, watch “Currently viewing” pop to "2" immediately after you sent the mail. Obviously, the Google borg is slurping up each and every address on the Web it is fed.

more insidious theories aside, this is probably at least used to drive the "warning, this looks like a phishing attack" which gets inserted inline in some emails.

Someone didn't see yesterdays playing card/get request debate.

Hard to imagine this could be much of a debate. If it's not idempotent you can't use GET. Period.

"but you are literally 'get'ing a playing card"

Of course they are - they are probably checking the URL for phishing content or malware.

They can't be doing this. What if just opening the link does a destructive action, like unsubscribing or posting a comment on your website?

Then said link is in violation of web standards that have existed for literally decades. I believe I've heard stories about google bots deleting entire forums, because the forums performed destructive actions via GET calls to specific URLs.

If what you said makes sense to you, ask yourself how google can crawl any URL at all, considering communicating anything to any server could trigger a destructive action.

I'm curious how one-click unsubscribes continue to function, then. Wouldn't those need to be GET requests (due to being a link)?

Take a look. All modern unsubscribes are a get followed by a post for exactly this reason.

Today I learned!

Beware, one of the unwritten laws of HN is that any post containing anything vaguely reminiscent of reddit gets downvoted. Upvoted in order to pre-empt the inevitable downvote.

Thanks! I wasn't attempting to bring something reddit-esq to HN, I simply enjoy learning new tidbits everyday on HN!

Would you consider an unsubscribe page that used javascript to automatically make a PUT/POST unsubscribe call on pageload bad practice then?

The google-bots wouldn't affect it since they don't run javascript

Google seems to be running JavaScript for a while now:

I.e.: http://searchengineland.com/tested-googlebot-crawls-javascri...

They do and they are (at least where I have worked) but it seems that Google et. alia are smart enough to not follow links marked containing text with the value "Unsubscribe".

> What if just opening the link does a destructive action, like unsubscribing or posting a comment on your website?

Then whoever created the link that does that is doing web wrong and needs to stop.

GET is, by definition, a safe method. (See RFC 7231, Sec. 4.2.1; RFC 2616, Sec. 9.1.1.) Doing destructive actions via a safe method is plain wrong.

Being wrong is very different from not existing. As long as a spec is a guideline there are people doing it wrong, I guarantee you that.

There are links that do that and if google were to follow every linkt people would notice very fast.

Google does follow every link, and those people do notice, because their forums get deleted. Very few people do it this wrong for very long.

(Or they get fed up and patch the problem without understanding it, by using robots.txt to block all crawlers from their site.)

Idempotency of HTTP GET requests is not a theoretical concern.

> Idempotency of HTTP GET requests is not a theoretical concern.

That's true, but the relevant feature here is safety, not idempotence. (Though a safe method is also idempotent, not all idempotent methods are safe.)

Idempotence has nothing to do with it. POSTs are also Idempotent.

> Idempotence has nothing to do with it. POSTs are also Idempotent.

No, of the "base" HTTP/1.1 methods, all safe methods (GET, HEAD, OPTIONS, TRACE) and some unsafe methods (PUT and DELETE) are idempotent.

POST is neither safe nor idempotent (and safety is the key feature here, rather than idempotence.)

GET, HEAD, and POST are cacheable methods, which you may be confusing with idempotent methods. These are very different categories, however.

POSTs are not by definition idempotent. You can make a server response to a POST be idempotent but when you want multiple identical requests to have different effects, POST is the method to use (vs. GET, PUT, DELETE, etc.)




9.1.1 Safe Methods

Implementors should be aware that the software represents the user in their interactions over the Internet, and should be careful to allow the user to be aware of any actions they might take which may have an unexpected significance to themselves or others.

In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and HEAD methods SHOULD NOT have the significance of taking an action other than retrieval. These methods ought to be considered "safe". This allows user agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT and DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the fact that a possibly unsafe action is being requested.

Naturally, it is not possible to ensure that the server does not generate side-effects as a result of performing a GET request; in fact, some dynamic resources consider that a feature. The important distinction here is that the user did not request the side-effects, so therefore cannot be held accountable for them.

Don't all dynamic pages only exist if someone is looking at it?

I think a better title would be "This page only exists AS LONG AS someone is looking at it"

Either way, cool demo!

I think the concept is akin to a beach ball that is passed from hand to hand. It only exists one instance of it. With a webserver, a new instance is created for each user viewing the page.

A beach ball that can be held simultaneously by any amount of people, though

Read this aloud: "[] that is passed from hand to hand. "

Hahaha the old "if a tree fell in the woods" eh?

But what if the tree is cached?

No, because of the word "only"

I once implemented a crude but serverless P2P in JavaScript by using pulse-width-modulating information inside bandwidth usage; anyone on the same Wi-Fi frequency would then be able to stream some arbitrary fixed-bitrate content and observe the drops in their bandwidth throughput to pick up the modulated information. But it was hellishly slow (a couple of bytes a second at best, a couple of bits at worst), and didn't work as soon as there were 3 devices on the frequency.

Would be interested to explore other ways to make pure-JS mesh networking happen. I've thought of using the JavaScript image pinging trick to "port scan" the entire subnet for peers, and communicate by "mildly DDoSing" each other with pings, but haven't actually tried yet.

Another potential method to pure-JS P2P is by using the microphone and speaker and building a mesh network at inaudible frequencies but this requires microphone permissions and won't work beyond the same room, and would be only several hundred bytes per second at best.

WebRTC, and in particular, RTCDataChannel, might be what you're looking for to get true P2P data transfer.

See: http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/webrtc/basics/

Ya, OP should have a look at icecomm for that... makes it really easy to implement WebRTC in multiple browsers. It was on hacker news a while back:


Feross has built the thing the author talks about, a Bittorrent client in the browser called WebTorrent, it is super awesome and incredibly useful for sending files, check it out at: http://instant.io !

Very cool! This is exactly what I had in mind, but couldn't find any implementations of it. Thanks for sharing.

This is a fantastic example of using Phoenix channels! For those interested in how channels work, check out my ElixirConfEU Phoenix keynote where I give an overview:


Very nice idea and I'm sure that it's a great way to play with Elixir/a platform. Well done!

Two questions:

1) You talk about P2P uses, but would it be feasible to 'seed' a true P2P net? A site that delivers the application, and everything from there is P2P vs. 'ask the server so that the server asks potential peers (clients?)'?


I got this at the top:

Connecting to websocket. Connected! Listening for content for hash 2bbbf21959178ef2f935e90fc60e5b6e368d27514fe305ca7dcecc32c0134838 Requesting content. Received content for hash 2bbbf21959178ef2f935e90fc60e5b6e368d27514fe305ca7dcecc32c0134838 Received content for hash 2bbbf21959178ef2f935e90fc60e5b6e368d27514fe305ca7dcecc32c0134838 Standing by... ready to share this content!

Two answers for the hash? Intentional? Fine? If that happens quite a lot, you might waste more bandwidth/resources than necessary in your experiment?

Great questions!

For (1) I'm not sure. I'm primarily a backend dev, so this was partly an experiment for me to play with the front end, too. I kind of hope javascript is not able to connect "sideways" to other ordinary browsers. I would think they'd need to be running some sort of server, which I don't think the browser can get going. Would be happy to learn more about this from someone more knowledgeable.

Regarding (2), you should have seen my first approach: Every new client broadcasted a request for the content, and everyone with it responded! Now that was a waste of bandwidth.

But what I've done here is I send the request for content out to everyone with it, with a probability of 1/N, where N is roughly the number of people with it. So in your case, it looks like it got sent to two folks. Sometimes it gets sent to none, in which case the client will retry in 2 seconds.

It was a little tricky to figure out since phoenix runs every socket connection in its own erlang process (great for robustness and concurrency, but a real mind bender if you're not used to it). So this probabilistic approach was the best I could come up with, instead of having some master process select the right person to send the request to.

Maybe the side-channel connections could be built on WebRTC, which includes STUN facilities for making the connection.

This is a wonderful proof-of-concept and has potential applications in better decentralising web services.

Keep going!

However in this case, only the content is being decentralized, not the service itself.

Author here.

True, and a very clear way of putting it. Interestingly, since Erlang is so well-suited for distributed computing, and Phoenix (the web framework I'm using) has been built to take advantage of that, it wouldn't be too hard to let someone else spin up this same service and take part in distributing the content.

Off the top of my head, the only thing that wouldn't work is the "Currently Viewing" counter, which relies on this all running on a single heroku dyno. Otherwise, the socket messages are routed over a distributed PubSub layer, which should be pretty easy to tap into.

It's a cool idea. What do you think about running it from an Android? (Isn't there an Apache APK?) So you can only view the page while connected to the phone's hotspot?

That would make it even more etheral.

could you also keep track of viewers on a per-server basis and simply add those numbers together on the fronted?

like if

server 1abcdef is managing 300 sockets server 2ghijkl is managing 200 sockets

then you just add those on the frontend

Yes, but as long as the same method is used to generate the hash, the same browser could connect to multiple services and share the same content.

In that sense there needn't be a single service. Just a bunch of rendevous points for browsers-with-content to connect and announce what they have.

This is very cool, and the content-addressable web is going to be a huge leap forward for permanence and publishing without needing to run a server. Lots of people are working towards this future. In particular, you should look into IPFS.


Oh wow, very cool. This is very much what I had in mind when thinking about a content addressable web. Thanks for the tip.

Stop on by #ipfs on freenode irc, would love to chat :)

> But why?

The first thing that came to my mind is that this could be a great tool to fight censorship

Unless everyone hosting the page gets arrested

It's still practical since it makes things harder as opposed to one central location for a server.

Or a snapchat utilities. Since the servers do not save contents, it can be a nice broadcast-and-forget network backbone.

Try this page, too!


This is a test page with embedded media via base64 encoding. This shouldn't touch the server, so hopefully no bottlenecks for this page either :)

Unfortunately it seems to have gone to 0 and therefore disappeared? =/

Hmm, I'm still viewing it, and it says 4 others are also viewing right now...

Oh, interesting. For me it's at 0 viewing, and stuck in a 'Requesting content' loop -- and of course, as I wrote that, it found a peer! :)

It's back.

That's nothing, this one has a base64 encoded video.


Seems to be dead

Kind of related, http://channelurl.com/ -- the site only has those pages that are linked to. In other words, the content of a page is taken from its URL.

Example: a couple of Mark Twain quotes at



I think this is great. The page is basically a markdown viewer and the link has markdown encoded in it. If you pass the URL through a URL shortener, then the URL shortener is effectively hosting the content of your page. It would be cool if this was static HTML and the markdown was rendered in JS.

This one has a WYSIWYG editor and renders the markdown using only javascript. All content is in the URL and isn't even sent to the server.


With source code: https://github.com/jbt/markdown-editor

Nice! Uses compression as well, I see.

Would be super cool if the URL encoding schemes of these two sites were compatible!

OTH, I'm guessing the markdown-editor "site" cannot be searched.

Here is the result for the Google search of channelurl.com for "bird" / http://www.google.ca/cse?q=bird&cx=partner-pub-1886386989888...

Kind of fun that way too!

Does this also mean that, technically, I can edit the page and someone else, who connects after my edits, gets to see my edited page?

Sneaky! But, no, the server double checks that the content you're sending hashes to the correct thing.[0]

[0] https://github.com/losvedir/ephemeral2/blob/master/web/chann...

I think you'd have to send them a link with the new hash in it. If you sent them the current page, the hash wouldn't match your changes.

As mentioned on the page, it does a sha-256 hash of the content, which you can think of as a fingerprint of the page.

If the content you get sent doesn't match that fingerprint, it will reject it.

Damn you, author. This is cool and now I am loath to close the page.

  Currently Viewing: 0
  Connecting to websocket.
Having a Sixth Sense-style existential crisis moment here... o_0

Same here... but I'm viewing from inside corporate firewall and it may have blocked some scripts.

Well it still goes right through the server, so it only causes more strain on the server than a standard setup.

The actual way to do this an acctualy call it p2p would be with a small WebRTC framework that can bootstrap the actual site.

ZeroNet is quite similar to this (but runs as a seperate program):


I am getting : Currently viewing : 0, Connecting to websocket.. and nothing happens. does this mean the trail has been lost and even the last user have closed their browser?

It gawn

no luck! same issue :(

Very cool! Interesting to see your findings. Maybe the browser is capable already of simplifying p2p file sharing. It would be good to get rid of todays torrent clients and have your browser run some slick p2p service instead that also serves as a convenient way of sharing or sending files with collegues and friends. I also really love the idea of tossing web content around (between) peers like that. Good work, so far. Don't think you're done yet.

Very cool!

Curious: If you want to have a lot of concurrent connections to your Elixir/Phoenix server, do you need to up the OS file descriptor limit?

And can you do that on Heroku?

All I got after 3 tries:

<code><!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="en"> <head> <meta charset="utf-8"> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge"> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> <meta name="description" content=""> <meta name="author" content="">

    <title>Ephemeral Hosting</title>
    <link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/app.css?vsn=30EBB49">

    <div class="container">
      <p>Currently Viewing: <span id="visitor-count">0</span></p>
      <div id="js-console" class="web-console"><ul></ul></div>
      <div id="content-goes-here">


    <script src="/js/app.js?vsn=3DA95D0"></script>
      (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),

      ga('create', 'UA-61291061-1', 'auto');
      ga('send', 'pageview');

</html> </code>

Hm, it's working for me. Did you try letting it sit a moment? The server doesn't actually store the content, so it has to load a blank page first. Eventually, you should receive the actual page content from a peer (via the server, to verify that the content is correct).

This is more interesting than the title eludes to; this is P2P via websockets. Neat!

Nice. Very nice.

If you ditched the hash that checks the content and made the whole page 'content-editable' (maybe with something that stripped certain tags like images and video for obvious reasons), that might be fun. :)

Ha, that's a fun idea. I imagine it would regress to a lot of inappropriate ASCII art pretty quickly, though...

The SHA-256 checksum is actually part of what makes it very interesting to me, though. Since the content of the page is guaranteed by the location of it, it's kind of a shared web that anyone can help host.

Very cool stuff. I wonder if it would be possible to host an entire webapp with sockets/rtc. I don't see why not, but it you'd have to re-invent decades worth of architecture built around http.

You should take a look at WebRTC's DataChannel. We're using it at Streamroot to do P2P video streaming in the browser.

You're talking about filesharing in P2P, again, totally something you can do with WebRTC. You should take a look at PeerJS if you want to experiment in no time.

You also talked about BitTorrent in the browser: you should definitely take a look at WebTorrent

Thsi reminds me of Mystery Men's Invisible Boy who has invisibility - but only when no one is looking!

I need to re-watch that movie.

It appears the content does travel to and through the server, for both initial hashing and later relaying to other clients.

Couldn't this be done without ever sending any content to the server, via in-browser hashing and client-to-client connections? (The server could still be used to help clients discover each other.)

Here's another, it is a please CLICKME page, even if it doesn't look like it. [0]

[0] http://ephemeralp2p.durazo.us/ae0fad06ab58fa6bbc1599733b6c0c...

This somehow crashed my system (caused a black screen). Firefox on linux. Beware.

What is this exactly? As a general warning, I don't sanitize or otherwise modify the shared content, so any sorts of badness could be there.

An attempt (copy paste really) to try and keep the window open and the content alive. Also, a request for the root/homepage could be funny if it was meta [0].

[0] http://ephemeralp2p.durazo.us/7eb67dd70747b8e979e77119e813f4...

Apparently it simply try to open a bunch of modal window to close. Chrome is smarter enough to figure that out, and there's only about five windows before the script is killed.

So cool! This is almost BitTorrent, but the dependency on the server for client coordination is still a weak point, and makes it more like Napster than BT.

It would be an interesting project to try something similar with WebRTC, to allow (as I understand it) actual P2P communication.

Well then.

So would we call it a heisenpage?

It would be cool if you could drag and expand the log window. Can you patch the content?

As the page is content-addressed, it can only change the content by changing the address, thus creating a whole new webpage - address and content, after all, define the resource.

Great proof of concept. I think it would also be interesting to have a version that uses public keys instead of/in addition to the checksum for people to publish content that they can edit and it be signed.

Currently it doesn't seem to exist even if someone IS looking at it :)

Can't help but comment that the title reminds me of a Doctor Who episode "Blink" where the statues only exist if someone looks at it. Anyway, cool Elixir project!

Interesting, this is like a P2P Snapchat for text. Or no. Better said, I am having trouble trying to associate this with something that exists already.

Good job for the innovation!

I've been thinking of it as somewhat like a Bluetooth pairing. Only exists when two devices are connected.

For the very unlikely case someone can't see this:

This page exists only if someone is looking at it Hi! Welcome to Ephemeral P2P. Thank you for loading this content. Your browser retrieved it from the browser of someone currently viewing this page. You're now a part of the network and someone who loads this page in the future may get it from you!

The server does not store this content anywhere, so as soon as the last person closes their browser, it's gone. You can see a count of how "healthy" the page is (how many people are viewing the content) at the top.

How does it work? At a high level, this is what happens:

From the homepage you enter the content you want to share. When you submit it, you register the SHA-256 hash of the content on the server. Your browser stands by with an open websocket to the server. When someone else visits a link "/[sha256hash]", the server tries to retrieve the content from anyone registered with that hash. The server double checks the hash of the content it gets and then passes it along to the new person. That new person now registers with the server as someone who knows the content for that hash. But why? Just a simple experiment to play with websockets and concurrency.

The app is built in Elixir (compiles to erlang) with the Phoenix framework, since it supports websockets out of the box. It's very "railsy" and in addition to rails-style "controllers", it has "channels" which are like controllers for websockets. Made building this thing a snap.

The app is hosted on a heroku 1X dyno and I'm hoping this hits the front page of HN to see how many concurrent connections I can squeeze out of it. Erlang is known for its concurrency, so I'd love to know how Elixir/Phoenix can serve as an alternative to my usual rails when highly concurrent solutions are needed. I plan to tweet my findings, so you can follow me (@losvedir) if you're interested in them.

Where do we go from here? There are two aspects to this project that I've found quite interesting, that I hope people explore:

Peer-to-peer over browser websockets Does something like this exist? I opted for P2P of HTML injected into a container div, since I didn't want to deal with the legalities of clients sharing binary files back and forth. But someone wanting to deal with DMCA and all that might have an interesting service here.

I could see this being a great alternative to something like sendfile (I think that's a thing?), or DropBox, or what have you, when you just want to send a file to a friend and it's too big for email. Big files could even be broken up into individual SHA-256'ed pieces, and the list of SHA-256 hashes could be the thing sent. The other side would then fetch each piece in turn and re-assemble.

But that's starting to sound kind of like BitTorrent... I wonder if someone could even make a web-based bittorrent client along these lines.

Content addressed web The cool thing about the page content being represented by its SHA-256 hash is that it doesn't matter where the content comes from. If anyone sends you the content, you can verify that it's what you were looking for. This makes it well suited for peer-to-peer or otherwise distributed file serving.

Imagine essentially an archival service where all kinds of content (web pages, mp3s, videos, etc) are indexed according to their SHA-256. Hopefully this content would be distributed around the world and backed up and all that good stuff. Then if someone tweets a "hey, checkout this video I made [a2b89..]", it can be retrieved from this "global store of all content" using that hash. It's already very common to mention the SHA-256 alongside a download. Just think if you could take that and download from this service.

Wikipedia is an amazing collection of knowledge in terms of articles. It seems like it would be valuable to have a similar nonprofit service that was a repository of "notable" files.

A quick warning I don't do any sanitization of the shared HTML content, so be wary of other links that folks may post. But I don't think it's too great of a security risk, since there's nothing private here (no https), and you shouldn't be trusting me any more than any other random internet person.

In closing... Thanks for checking this out! Feel free to fork the repo on github and play around with it yourself!

And a big thanks to the friendly folks on the #elixir-lang IRC channel who have been very helpful in building this.

A (more) permament version of this content can be found here.

Wow this is pretty cool. Any feedback on Elixir?

Author here. I haven't done too much with Elixir yet, other than this Phoenix app, but I am totally enamored of it from what I've seen.

First and foremost, the community is absolutely the friendliest, most helpful group of folks.

I'm happy with its performance. Phoenix feels similar to rails to me (I'm primarily a rails dev), but with easily 10X performance. And the concurrency. Oh, the concurrency. This is Erlang's bread and butter, and Elixir and Phoenix are built to take complete advantage of this. I love that every request gets its own Erlang process, and you don't have to worry about it blocking anything else. The Erlang scheduler will keep it fair, cutting off any long running computation if it has to, to keep the latency down on new requests.

I really like how interesting and mind bending Elixir's purely functional, process-oriented approach is. Nothing (well, very little) is mutable! You can sort of simulate mutation by spinning up a little infinitely looping tail-recursive process and sending messages to it. I encourage you to go through the excellent Elixir Getting Started guide [0], and in particular the "Processes" section for more on this.

But I think the thing I like most about it so far, is the introduction to battle-tested Erlang approaches to robustness (OTP). This is a set of abstractions and libraries that have been iterated on over the years and are a fantastic way of building an app that's resilient to failure. Elixir, as it does, takes these abstractions and libraries, and puts enough sugar and consistency over them to make them a joy to use. I find this approach [1] supremely elegant (it's erlang, but applicable to elixir).

[0] http://elixir-lang.org/getting-started/introduction.html [1] https://medium.com/@jlouis666/error-kernels-9ad991200abd

Elixir is amazing. It's homiconic, like LISP, so being able to execute code at compile time can have a game-changing impact on reducing boilerplate. And in addiction to that, it's functional, so I can get the awesome benefits of immutable programming, but without the dizzying complexity of, for example, Scala's type system. And it's based on the Erlang VM, so I get the benefits of battle-hardened concurrency and IO underpinnings.

Previously I stayed away from things like Go and Node/Express, because I felt like it wasn't as easy for the type of work I do as Django, and was missing key things like the admin CRUD interface. But when I looked at what's in the Phoenix framework[1] and read the source, it started to feel like I'm witnessing the dawn of the next Ruby on Rails revolution. http://www.phoenixframework.org/

"Elixir isn't homoiconic, it never was, and they no longer make that claim." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7622746.

See http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HomoiconicLanguages "Languages in which program code is represented as the language's fundamental data type are called 'homoiconic'."

Not the author, but I've been loving it so far.

The Phoenix framework is really well thought out that making CRUD applications is easy and has all the bells and whistles you'd expect from a framework like Rails. But obviously that's just the surface. You have access to OTP with erlang's processes, supervisors, ETS, etc. You have access to every erlang module that's been written. You also have access to Elixir modules that load in to a Mix project like ruby gems. Also, it's wicked fast and scales.

But maybe best is the documentation is great. From elixir's docs to Phoenix to code docs, everything is clear. The community is quick to respond on IRC or GitHub.

For downsides, just newness: the lack of good blog posts make me feel like I'm re-inventing the wheel sometimes. Additionally, there's not many questions up on StackOverflow so my errors often come up with 0 google hits.

>Request received... >Content sent!

That was rewarding :)

This is awesome. Would be fun to see more statistics - how many people have I provided the page for, for example.

Beautiful Idea!

So, when I load the page how is it decided that which client should serve me the content?

darknets are awesome

i'm the author of a long-existing indexeddb javascript library. IDB can store all kinds of wonderful objects, including binary blobs. if you're inspired by client side data, you should check out indexeddb!

How about a link to it?

Fun, but not really P2P. Have a look at WebRTC for actual P2P :)

This is a sweet concept!

go page! hahaha so awesome

Ironically that is how most of the websites and webpages exist now - been the norm for couple of years since we started dynamically showing content via AJAX and lazy loading. There is nothing novel here.

You missed the idea here. Its not about AJAX loading. Its about how the content is served to the client without server storing the data to be served (content). You should spend more time on shared link to glean the beauty of this.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact