Comparison.
Backpack and xNFT's.
Let me preface this with saying - I love Backpack and Armani. Both of our projects are dedicated to growing the pie, through building beautiful UX for decentralization.
Backpack/xNFT's may seem similar to Dappnet, but have pretty different realisations of their direction.
Dappnet is directed towards creating a bulletproof platform for all types of media. Censorship-resistant dapps, but also websites, news, and datasets.
Backpack is honing in on building dapps and a great wallet for users.
In terms of technical differences:
xNFT's are hosted on Arweave, and cached by the CDN. Backpack must run a CDN, kind of like how Infura runs nodes for Metamask.
Dappnet apps are hosted by IPFS nodes (and soon BitTorrent). IPFS/BitTorrent employ swarm-based P2P solutions to serving content, where each node can also contribute their resources. The scalability of the two designs is to be considered.
ZeroNet.
ZeroNet is a custom browser that accesses websites via Bitcoin public keys, and downloads them over BitTorrent.
In terms of their approach, there are two main drawbacks:
custom browser - meaning users have to download a separate browser, which means re-working their existing setup and extensions (web3 wallets).
.bit domains - ZeroNet uses the Namecoin protocol so users can access content via .bit domains. We commend Namecoin as the first protocol to square Zooko's triangle, though it shows its age. For users, the UX for updating .eth domains is simpler, using more common payment methods (ETH, USD), and widely integrated in the crypto ecosystem.
Prior works.
Finally, I would like to list some prior works. While Dappnet was developed independently, I grew up playing with I2P/Freenet/Tor, and they had a big influence on these ideas. There are a few other approaches which are worth looking into, to compare against what we're doing.
Federalist. See this great thread on various approaches on HN.
Last updated
