2 ms·
Decentralized consensus over which private keys own what strings (aka Namecoin) would save us from having to deal with obtuse hashes, would it not?
by williamcotton 11y ago
Decentralized consensus over which private keys own what strings (aka Namecoin) would save us from having to deal with obtuse hashes, would it not?
- nikolay 11y agoOnce I install a package, its hashes and other info become part of the project. I just don't want that to change in time without me knowing. Etherum here is an overkill, it's not practical.
- williamcotton 11y agoHow do you first discover the hash? How are you looking it up?
- nikolay 11y agoThe recent issue with NPM surfaced the following two major issues: - a package got unpublished - we demand an immutable package manager; - packages got hijacked - we need authenticity as basic as checksums or signatures. Anything that accomplishes the above in an uncomplicated manner will win my business. Any craptocurrency pitching will not.
- WorldMaker 11y agogx seems to solve this with the concept of "repositories". From the gx README: > gx supports named packages via user configured repositories. A repository is simply an ipfs object whose links name package hashes. You can add a repository as either an ipns or ipfs path. It doesn't solve the repository "discovery" problem, but it does seem conceptually much simpler than trying to use a cryptocurrency-based solution.