https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/04/unqualified-names-ssl-...
https://security.googleblog.com/2013/12/further-improving-di...
Vapor also addresses decentralization in distribution of content as well.
I'm extremely skeptical of Vapor for other reasons, but we ought to at least keep the value proposition clear here.
> Vapor also addresses decentralization in distribution of content as well.
How? All I see some way of performing a replay or amplification attack using an unspecified gateway.
The article bills Vapor as helping to decentralize the "data layer" of an api. This naturally has some immediate caveats... like... this sort of framework would not be suitable for real time or streaming Apis.
Also, the article doesn't really touch on the cost of maintaining all of this. It's true that vapor api hosts can charge a small transaction fee to maintain/run their processing nodes. I have to wonder what that looks like, and if people are willing to pay a per-request fee for an http transaction.
I don't believe this is intended to replace standard authentication, and calling out how it's impractical for common scenarios is fair game. However, I think it's more interesting to think about scenarios where this might be useful.
Such as?
Something like IPFS pubsub could work, or you could use any of the on-chain social networks that have sprung up, or you could use E2E group chats like everyone from the Taliban to activists in the US use.