5 ms·

The internet may run on content (storage) and communication, but both those things run on computation. Until computation can be safely distributed real changes

by glibgil 10y ago

The internet may run on content (storage) and communication, but both those things run on computation. Until computation can be safely distributed real changes can't happen

wyager 10y ago
What do you mean? It seems to me that the single largest destructive force on the internet is forcible content takedowns. IPFS is immune to those.
- clueless404 10y ago
  In which way is IPFS immune to content takedowns? IPFS provides no anonymity, so it won't take long before DMCA notices to start arriving.
  - tom_mellior 10y ago
    > In which way is IPFS immune to content takedowns? In the way that, if one node is forced to take down some information, that information may still be accessible from other nodes under the same address as before. It's not quite immunity: They can still harrass individuals. Call it "resilience", maybe. > IPFS provides no anonymity, so it won't take long before DMCA notices to start arriving. It should compose well with Tor, I'd hope.
    - clueless404 10y ago
      Which makes it about as resilient as regular content hosting, which is not very. Does IPFS work with Tor?
      - mburns 10y ago
        >Which makes it about as resilient as regular content hosting, which is not very. It is decidedly more resilient than regular hosting in that situation.
        clueless404 10y ago
        How so? IPFS so only as resilient as you are good at dodging DMCA notices.
        mburns 10y ago
        Because mirroring content on IPFS is trivial and transparent to the consumer. All it takes is a single user (or an arbitrary number) outside of US jurisdiction and the content is more or less DMCA-immune. The equivalent is not practical in traditional HTTP, where content at risk of being taken down is scraped from the server and that snapshot-in-time is hosted as a mirror, generally at a different domain.
        clueless404 10y ago
        > Because mirroring content on IPFS is trivial and transparent to the consumer. Which is also why a regular consumer should never use IPFS and why prosumer should immediately disable caching and seeding upon install. > All it takes is a single user (or an arbitrary number) outside of US jurisdiction and the content is more or less DMCA-immune. Perhaps so, but if your plan for resiliency is based on the kindness of strangers in countries where the DMCA nor censorship does not apply, it's not much of a plan. Plus you'll still have to seed the original which opens you up to liability, as IPFS does not provide any kind of anonymity. So, while better than traditional HTTP, IPFS isn't really immune to takedowns nor very resilient.
        wyager 10y ago
        > Perhaps so, but if your plan for resiliency is based on the kindness of strangers in countries where the DMCA nor censorship does not apply, it's not much of a plan. Have you ever used Bittorent? It works great.
        clueless404 10y ago
        It works great only for a limited number of use cases. It's terrible for unpopular content, it is not immune to takedown notices nor is it very resilient in the face of a determined adversary.
kordless 10y ago
I've come to the conclusion compute needs to be separated from content and users using a new non-financial based business model. That's the only way to ensure game theory based models don't fuck up the infra on which everything depends.
dredmorbius 10y ago
Chalk me up as someone who totally doesn't get your distinction betweeen content / computation and what distributed computation would look like. Or why the current model (SaaS with Javascript apps literally shipped to every browser) isn't distributed computation. (The long digression on takedowns doesn't illuminate this at all either.)

by glibgil 10y ago

The internet may run on content (storage) and communication, but both those things run on computation. Until computation can be safely distributed real changes can't happen

wyager 10y ago

What do you mean? It seems to me that the single largest destructive force on the internet is forcible content takedowns. IPFS is immune to those.

clueless404 10y ago
In which way is IPFS immune to content takedowns? IPFS provides no anonymity, so it won't take long before DMCA notices to start arriving.
- tom_mellior 10y ago
  > In which way is IPFS immune to content takedowns? In the way that, if one node is forced to take down some information, that information may still be accessible from other nodes under the same address as before. It's not quite immunity: They can still harrass individuals. Call it "resilience", maybe. > IPFS provides no anonymity, so it won't take long before DMCA notices to start arriving. It should compose well with Tor, I'd hope.
  - clueless404 10y ago
    Which makes it about as resilient as regular content hosting, which is not very. Does IPFS work with Tor?
    - mburns 10y ago
      >Which makes it about as resilient as regular content hosting, which is not very. It is decidedly more resilient than regular hosting in that situation.
      - clueless404 10y ago
        How so? IPFS so only as resilient as you are good at dodging DMCA notices.
        mburns 10y ago
        Because mirroring content on IPFS is trivial and transparent to the consumer. All it takes is a single user (or an arbitrary number) outside of US jurisdiction and the content is more or less DMCA-immune. The equivalent is not practical in traditional HTTP, where content at risk of being taken down is scraped from the server and that snapshot-in-time is hosted as a mirror, generally at a different domain.
        clueless404 10y ago
        > Because mirroring content on IPFS is trivial and transparent to the consumer. Which is also why a regular consumer should never use IPFS and why prosumer should immediately disable caching and seeding upon install. > All it takes is a single user (or an arbitrary number) outside of US jurisdiction and the content is more or less DMCA-immune. Perhaps so, but if your plan for resiliency is based on the kindness of strangers in countries where the DMCA nor censorship does not apply, it's not much of a plan. Plus you'll still have to seed the original which opens you up to liability, as IPFS does not provide any kind of anonymity. So, while better than traditional HTTP, IPFS isn't really immune to takedowns nor very resilient.
        wyager 10y ago
        > Perhaps so, but if your plan for resiliency is based on the kindness of strangers in countries where the DMCA nor censorship does not apply, it's not much of a plan. Have you ever used Bittorent? It works great.
        clueless404 10y ago
        It works great only for a limited number of use cases. It's terrible for unpopular content, it is not immune to takedown notices nor is it very resilient in the face of a determined adversary.

kordless 10y ago

I've come to the conclusion compute needs to be separated from content and users using a new non-financial based business model. That's the only way to ensure game theory based models don't fuck up the infra on which everything depends.

dredmorbius 10y ago

Chalk me up as someone who totally doesn't get your distinction betweeen content / computation and what distributed computation would look like. Or why the current model (SaaS with Javascript apps literally shipped to every browser) isn't distributed computation. (The long digression on takedowns doesn't illuminate this at all either.)