As some of you might have seen, I’ve been working on an Autonomi browser extension.
SafeBox enables users to use the Autonomi network from the comfort of their web browser.
The vast majority of potential users will be using a web browser - and while they would love to see all the content on Autonomi, they may lack the technical expertise to do so.
This extension connects via a web-socket to a local client that interfaces with the Autonomi network.
The local client could potentially be hosted on a remote server in the future.
This would then only require the end user to have the extension, eliminating the need for a local client (planned for future release).
Here are the three repos (These will be updated, as I have created new ones):
Autonomi Browser Extension:
SafeBox Local Client:
SafeBox Server Endpoint Client:
Example Webpage Showcase: Deprecated
There are of course going to be bugs so I would love contributors to the code-base, and testers!
This one gonna be big! Could it work on chrome mobile too if it was hosted on a remote server?
I wonder if there is an opportunity with @TraktionAntTP. That really opens some flood gates imo. SafeBox FTW!
I’m not sure as I don’t have experience with chrome mobile, but I’d assume so.
With the remote server method, it might even be easier in terms of configuration to secure with wss than with the local client. The transport encryption is what I am focusing on now as currently it’s just via unsecured transport in the websockets (ws vs wss).
Quick update - I’ll be finishing up some code for jams today/tomorrow. I also want to deploy a fun little project I was testing out. In 3-4 days I will be focusing on the extension until the deadline. I plan to spend some time on the following in the coming weeks:
potentially integrating anttp into the local client
testing from domains instead of just localhost
adding settings page
connection indicator
potentially integrating anttp into local wallet system UI once available
If you have any requests for features you can comment below!
In my head I see browser extension to use Autonomi and think..
Download extension, done, Autonomi at my fingertips.
But I get the feeling additional steps will be required?
Could you please give me an idea of how it would work from a users perspective?
Also will you supply the precompiled binary for the SafeBox local client for windows 64bit only or linux (32/64bit arm/x86) / macOS (apple silicon / intel ) etc..
Currently it works where you can install the browser extension, install the local client and then be able to upload/download to the network, and view these files in new tabs - this works via localhost. The local client will have a precompiled binaries (.exe, .dmg etc) for windows/linux/mac.
Next step that I am working on is building a remote server, that wraps anttp and perhaps eventually dweb. Then in the extension it will have a default server list, and also allows the user to input new servers should the default ones not work/exist anymore. People can host these servers, which act as endpoints for the extension to interact with.
More features are planned, but I want the basics down first.
Oh and local client won’t be required if using remote servers.
The first version was indeed just localhost, which needed the user to run a local client. The local client isn’t dweb, but a custom creation with a UI for wallet etc.
The next version will have the ability of using remote servers.
The user can choose whatever they prefer, local for increased privacy, remote for convenience.
I guess the main thing is the local client is a UI application right now (mac/linux/windows) with built in UI management for wallet, usernames, testnet functionality etc - user friendly.
But the plan for the server implementation is that it will be a wrapper around anttp and not have a UI. And be aimed at developers to quickly spin up servers (docker, endpoint exposure, letsencrypt etc).
okay - sorry but now I’m confused again … so when you wrap anttp behind the server component of your browser extension … what’s the difference to just using
just to be clear - I don’t think that’s a bad idea - I think having anttp and dweb is more than enough proxy servers for starters and using (at least one of) them does make a lot of sense!
I just don’t understand …
It won’t be behind a server component of the extension (not fully sure what you mean here), it will be wrapper software that can be hosted on servers to provide endpoints, where the extension can reach out to.
Yes there are many other implementations of providing access to the network, and worldwidenodes is a good example of that. The extension will allow the user to just install it and specify which servers they wish to request the network files from. Or they can use the local client so as to add extra privacy.
Perhaps the gain compared to dweb/anttp could be that you can manage your wallet locally in extension, and thus make possible uploads or data modification easily…
