fiatjaf's avatar
fiatjaf _@fiatjaf.com 1 week ago
Has every client stopped offering an option to use imgproxy for autoresizing images? I remember users could configure their own imgproxy on Snort, Iris and Coracle. Was that a bad idea because no one was using the option and if anyone used they would have a sitting duck imgproxy that anyone else could abuse? We could think of some solutions for community-hosted imgproxy servers that can be secure by having the client compute the required HMACs locally, or is this too ambitious? @hodlbod @utxo the webmaster 🧑‍💻 @Kieran @Vitor Pamplona @Sirius @Cody
Sats McRyan's avatar Sats McRyan
Every Nostr app. Ive used dozens over the 3 years I've been here, including several I've made myself. They all got high bandwidth usage due to various issues. Mostly media not being optimized, and duplicate relay traffic.
View quoted note →

Replies (14)

The Bitcoin Libertarian - En Español's avatar
The Bitcoin Libertarian - En Español 1 week ago
Tengo una pregunta mejor: ¿por qué preocuparse por imagenes cuando el precio de Bitcoin llega a 69.387 dólares? ¿No es hora de dejar de perder tiempo con detalles y enfocarse en lo importante?
The_Crin's avatar
The_Crin thecrin@satlantis.io 1 week ago
I have been using IPFS for a while and I do feel that it could help for more decentralized storage, but seeing what happened with the latest updates, I think that network still needs more development, because with only one update that was made to the file cube, many of the nodes stopped responding to previous nodes and trying to change everything you stored from a node with an old version to a newer one is not very intuitive.
2 replies ↓
jb55's avatar
jb55 _@jb55.com 3 days ago
A personal image proxy that you could configure would be neat. I would use that to avoid the issues of centralized image proxies
2 replies ↓
hodlbod's avatar
hodlbod hodlbod@coracle.social 3 days ago
I can't remember why it was bad. I think part of it had to do with the fact that nostr.build optimizes images itself and he wanted clients to use those directly so that they didn't have to serve the full sized file over and over. But caching on the proxy's side should improve that, and clients don't know to download the smaller files anyway.
2 replies ↓
The Fishcake (nostr.build)'s avatar
The Fishcake (nostr.build) _@thefishcake.com 3 days ago
I think (and I don’t recall exactly) it was mainly due to caching of potential CSAM and such at that layer. We try to catch and delete them quickly but if you cache it’ll stay. Of course if you perform scanning and reviewing yourself for that cache, that is fine. And I think the deletion was an issue too, where caches usually do not respect TTL that hosts serves.
↑