3 ms·

I love IPFS, and it's definitely ahead in terms of applicability. IPFS is solving a different problem -- it's a storage network, not a personal server. IPFS i

by yarvin9 11y ago

I love IPFS, and it's definitely ahead in terms of applicability. IPFS is solving a different problem -- it's a storage network, not a personal server. IPFS is more comparable to Freenet or BitTorrent. Urbit is more comparable to Sandstorm, although of course they're technically very different.

fit2rule 11y ago
Like I said, I'm yet to finish boning up on what, exactly, Urbit is .. Sorry - not trying to be pedantic - but how is IPFS not a personal server? I can serve content with it right now, in fact - its what I mostly use it for at the moment. I guess Urbit is more of an 'operating environment' that allows applications to be built, then?
- yarvin9 11y ago
  Yes -- Urbit is a "server" in the sense of "computer," which you control and which runs your own apps. IPFS stores and serves your data; so does Dropbox, Cloudflare, etc. In a sense the best way to see IPFS is as a distributed CDN, of course with an immutable namespace that actually works.
  - msutherl 11y ago
    Do you foresee Urbit making use of IPFS?
    - yarvin9 11y ago
      When both succeed, certainly. :-) We certainly don't try to solve the CDN problem that IPFS is solving.
pkinsky 11y ago
Is Urbit comparable to Ethereum?
- jpt4 11y ago
  Ethereum is distributed: the network acts as a single organism, and computation only co-occurs with (perhaps can only be considered a side-effect of) consensus among nodes. Urbit is [de|para|un]-centralized, with each node capable of independent (possibly antagonistic) action.