7 ms·
Interesting. Can someone explain how IPFS works? Is it like Tor? I don't have any interest in running some sort of distributed content farm that might place
by notwhiteknight 10y ago
Interesting. Can someone explain how IPFS works? Is it like Tor? I don't have any interest in running some sort of distributed content farm that might place CP on my computer. Even if the chance of that happening is 0.00001%.
- Mizza 10y agoIPFS is not an anonymity network.
- kefka 10y agoIndeed not. In fact, IPFS via the DHT, tells the network of your whole network topology, including internal address you may have, and VPN endpoints too. There's still talks in how to handle Tor connections. Because right now, if you were to use a Tor connection with IPFS, it will tell the whole network your public, private, and .onion addresses all.
- giancarlostoro 10y agoWhy would it do that though? I don't really care for Tor, but private network? That's a bit strange to me. Can you or someone explain? Seems like it has no regard for privacy by the sound of it.
- kefka 10y agoSure can. What IPFS does, is looks at network topology to determine 'closeness' of nearby IPFS nodes. It then prefers 'closer' nodes, to speed up transactions and requests. For example, if we take Gangnam Style video, it spread to something like 100M views rapidly. With Youtube, that's 100M individual downloads. With IPFS, it would be 1 or 2 downloads per local network. And then those machines would provide the local network with the content, rather than hitting the 'net at large. The only good way to do this, is to include all the adapters in the DHT to where all machines are. It also allows IPFS to seamlessly work across NATs and other junky applications of IPv4 (and egads, already seeing ipv6 nat).
- giancarlostoro 10y agoThat's neat, though I think in some cases, say Intellectual Property on your LAN, or other things, you may want those services ignored I would think? Sounds like setting up IPFS has to become a rather isolated process for some? Which I find kind of limiting if you're forced to go through hoops for something that could be opt-in / configurable at the very least?
- kefka 10y agoWell, all I can defend against that, is that it's still "Alpha Software". There's stuff that's very much not for private or secure networks. But for working with data that's intended to be open, it's wonderful.
- lgierth 10y agoThere's going to be support for private networks, and for various ways of encrypting data. We just haven't gotten to it yet :) You can of course already encrypt the data yourself before adding it to ipfs.
- kordless 10y ago> Seems like it has no regard for privacy by the sound of it. IPFS is an infrastructure building block. You are judging it by throwing out "privacy" like all things need to implement privacy without regards to the fact it's the application layer that should be responsible for the "security" of the "private" communication. I could seed an encrypted file on IPFS and then put a bounty out on it for people to cache it aggressively. I'll increase bounty if you've cached for me before and I'll increase bounty for anyone caching it around a particular timeframe. Any agent looking for my contact who is downloading that file doesn't know if they know the file is for my contact or not.
- mirimir 10y agoI'm thinking about creating a gateway for IPFS from clearnet to OnionCat IPv6. So other onion servers can participate without revealing public IPs.
- kefka 10y agoYou WILL have to hack on IPFS software, as to not release all your adapter information. Even if you tunnel all the IPFS datastream through .onion , the datastream inside will tell everyone your IP adresses, internal (unroutable) and external.
- mirimir 10y agoI've been playing with Freenet, and it does the same. So the IPFS peer would be a VM with no public IP address, which connects through a Tor gateway VM. I'm guessing that IPFS needs a reachable IP:port, so I'd use a throwaway VPS as a clearnet proxy.
- x0137294744532 10y agoIPFS isn't an anonymous network and you don't share files that you didn't download. It works more like a distributed CDN for static files.
- cmrx64 10y agoCurrently, you don't serve files etc unless you manually pin them yourself.
- kefka 10y agoNot true. You share: 1. Files you Pinned (think of as torrent seeding) 2. Files you have in your IPFS cache a. Cache files are added to when you request IPFS content b. The garbage collection triggers and removes non-pinned content at regular intervals 3. The default files that are added to a new IPFS repo (unless you removed them or init'ed using the appropriate option to not include them) To answer the GP's question: As long as you don't pin child porn, and you don't look for child porn, there's 0% chance in IPFS-land.
- b101010 10y agoWould (a) not be a. Cache files are added to when _something causes a request for_ IPFS content The distinction being that "something" is not always a direct action from the user. If content on IPFS (ie a web page?) can reference and load content from other addresses (assumption) then could someone end up in the situation where they are "hosting" (from the cache) something they would not expect to be? (until the garbage collection clears it). If this seems far fetched, A submission to HN the other day seemed to surprise a few people[1] as it made a http request to a adult website to check if they had an active session (but did not display any content). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12692389 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12692389
- mekaj 10y agoThis is true and good to keep in mind, but it's also an inescapable risk of any network involving autonomous agents. We're also susceptible to downloading content that's different than advertised (e.g. Rickrolling).
- kefka 10y agoAnd in all honesty, the whole "but child porn OMG" is a non-sequitor. Child porn already exists on the web directly. And Tor Hidden Sites. And Freenet. And other places. The real problem with CP is that fact there's no mens-rea requirement. A script can download it to your browser cache under blank images. It's in your cache, and you have no clue. In the current situation, you are illegal. With mens-rea, you aren't - there was no willingness to get it, therefore you aren't at fault. Think of this as shoplifter compared to something that fell in your cart you missed. Same idea. (In all honesty, I hold to Stallman's idea of CP shouldn't be illegal, period. It's a proof of a crime. Snuff videos of people being murdered isn't illegal, although the murdering part very much is. Child abuse is illegal, as well it should be, but proof of child abuse shouldn't.)
- jmickey 10y agoThere's a good overview of IPFS here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skMTdSEaCtA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skMTdSEaCtA
- zerognowl 10y ago> "As seductive as a blockchain’s other advantages are, neither companies or individuals are particularly keen on publishing all of their information onto a public database that can be arbitrarily read without any restrictions by one’s own government, foreign governments, family members, coworkers and business competitors" https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/01/15/privacy-on-the-blockchain/ https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/01/15/privacy-on-the-blockcha...
- rmc 10y agoI don't think it's anonymous, and AFAIK you don't store random files, so you can't store child pornography unless you request said files.
- lgierth 10y agokefka's replies to this question are accurate (thanks!)
- lkjhgfdsa57 10y agoFreenet encrypts content, parcels it into chunks and distributes those chunks amongst peers. Does this meet your definition of "distributed content farm that might place CP on my computer"? I'm curious because I've seen objections to Freenet for that reason yet the content stored is in no way CP. No bad content can be reconstructed from the data in your store. Not just because it's encrypted but because you'd be holding random small chunks of the file. The vast majority of Freenet content is probably about Freenet itself (Web of trust data, Sone traffic, FMS traffic), not bad content.
- jawbone3 10y agoThose chunks are intended to be used as child porn, and the "you can't tell its child porn" objection is a weak one for those who don't want to be part of its distribution on moral grounds.
- badsock 10y agoThe best one-liner I've heard: it's like one giant git repo that's inside of one giant bittorrent. My (imperfect) understanding is that it runs like a market: you temporarily store and forward blocks (<1MB) that are considered "valuable" (i.e. popular) in exchange for people forwarding you the blocks that you want. So there's a cache at each node where popular blocks are held - which I'm sure you can keep in RAM if you want. So while it's possible that content you don't want might pass through your IPFS node, it's pretty ephemeral. In general, I don't think IPFS is a great place to do naughty things - it's not big on anonymity, and since blocks drop off the network if they're not being actively requested, to keep something up there you have to store it permanently _somewhere_, which is going to be traceable to the same degree that running a webserver is.
- kirushik 10y agoAs far as my understanding goes (and I've spent a day discussing it with IPFS authors in person this September), IPFS doesn't store or forward anything you haven't explicitly requested. So you participate only in sharing things you're aware of (and bad things are rather easy to remove from that cache) — and that's a deliberate design decision. Things in local IPFS cache can indeed be "garbage-collected" (and there's a CLI command to trigger GC manually) — but IPFS daemon has a concept of _pinning_, and pinned IPFS nodes won't be collected, and will remain stored (and being shared) as as the pinning goes.