@julian All that said, one of my fears is a centralized bridge, so I *would* like to do this at some point if we have bandwidth.
Discussion
Loading...
Post
@julian It's something @snarfed.org and I have discussed a few times, but it's a huge project to take on, and we'd probably wait until someone has a real need for it. We've spoken to a few partners, and everyone is good using our instance atm, but we know the steps we need to take to make it happen.
NB: We make it really easy for instances to set up a bridging switch + default custom domains already: https://fed.brid.gy/docs#bluesky-handle-api
@julian All that said, one of my fears is a centralized bridge, so I *would* like to do this at some point if we have bandwidth.
@ Anuj Ahooja This makes me wonder if a decentralised, anyone-can-host-it third-party bridge that's only a bridge would be feasible.
Of course, it'd be the easiest to integrate such a bridge directly into Fediverse server software. But we've only got so many multi-protocol Fediverse server applications right now already, and the only one that's still occasionally adding new protocols or even a bridge is Friendica. It is therefore the only Fediverse server software that can connect to Bluesky without Bridgy Fed.
CC: @ A New Social
# Long # LongPost # CWLong # CWLongPost # FediMeta # FediverseMeta # CWFediMeta # CWFediverseMeta # Fediverse # Friendica # Bluesky
Re: Bridge as a service...
@quillmatiq@mastodon.social thanks! The general context behind it was that I'm doing some outreach to local networks and occasionally I see attempts at forming digital spaces. It's one thing to tell a community "hey set up a forum or mastodon or similar", but it's another thing altogether then they have an existing product and I have to say "hey now you have to implement this protocol, good luck!"
bonfire.cafe
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
Automatic federation enabled