6 ms·

With the web going more mobile with less storage space. Why would anyone would want to be a node in such a network where you have to cache content for others.

by singham 10y ago

rv11 10y ago
same reason why people seed torrent?
- s_kilk 10y ago
  Notably, no-one seeds torrents from their mobile connections. The cost would be prohibitive, without even getting into the issue of storage.
  - rv11 10y ago
    cost is prohibitive today, not necessarily tomorrow or work only when you are using wifi . storage can be capped.
  - hatsunearu 10y ago
    The idea is that companies or people backing the content could easily provision more nodes to meet the demand. To create an IPFS "host", its super simple: ipfs pin myhash
teekert 10y ago
Well apart from battery, If I was an ISP, I´d like it if a Youtube movie would flow from one persons mobile to the hotspot of the train said person is sitting on and on towards another person on the train. This scenario would require significantly less bandwidth overall. Same goes for neighbors accessing the same information. And this can be extrapolated to many situations. The IPFS powered internet would perhaps lead to more uploads but it would scale significantly better and will be cheaper to maintain. Hence cost can also go down for end users/consumers.
- clueless404 10y ago
  > Well apart from battery, ... and that's pretty much the deal killer for this on mobile, even ignoring everything else. > If I was an ISP, I´d like it if a Youtube movie ... except you are not allowed to download videos from YouTube or most (if not all) the popular video content services. > a Youtube movie would flow from one persons mobile to the hotspot of the train said person is sitting on and on towards another person on the train. This would only work as long as person A is running IPFS, connected to the hotspot and has any cached content somebody else is concurrently interested in. The hotspot is very unlikely to run IPFS and to have any storage, so cache hit ratios would not only be low they would be dependent on person A's transit schedule. > This scenario would require significantly less bandwidth overall. No, the same amount of bandwidth would be consumed, but perhaps over a cheaper radio bearer. > The IPFS powered internet would perhaps lead to more uploads but it would scale significantly better and will be cheaper to maintain. Somehow I doubt that. Total costs would most likely go up, but they would perhaps be more spread out. > Hence cost can also go down for end users/consumers. Consumers don't spend anything for accessing content on the Internet, so I really doubt there are any cost savings to be had.
  - teekert 10y ago
    > ... and that's pretty much the deal killer for this on mobile, even ignoring everything else. It is, for now, indeed. > Except you are not allowed to download videos from YouTube I think youtube would be interested in some load balancing if they could keep the income from commercials. Wait, what, there wouldn't be a need for YouTube. We'd only need a way to pay content creators build into the system (Ethereum coupling somehow?? I'm not sure, can views be tracked in IPFS?). > This scenario would require significantly less bandwidth overall. The same amount of bits are pumped around but they have to cover significantly less physical distance and hubs. This reduces bandwidth. > Somehow I doubt that. Total costs would most likely go up, but they would perhaps be more spread out. Me pumping bits from my neighbor's house to mine instead of us both via the backbone from some server in a central location requires less (expensive) infrastructure between me and that central location. > Consumers don't spend anything for accessing content on the Internet indirectly they (we) pay for the copper and the fiber.
dredmorbius 10y ago
It's trivial to provision a mobile device with 128GB+ storage these days. Non-mobile devices start at $5. A considerable server is <$100. Even only modest amounts of server persistence allow for a powerful distributed net.

With the web going more mobile with less storage space. Why would anyone would want to be a node in such a network where you have to cache content for others.

by singham 10y ago

With the web going more mobile with less storage space. Why would anyone would want to be a node in such a network where you have to cache content for others.

rv11 10y ago

same reason why people seed torrent?

s_kilk 10y ago
Notably, no-one seeds torrents from their mobile connections. The cost would be prohibitive, without even getting into the issue of storage.
- rv11 10y ago
  cost is prohibitive today, not necessarily tomorrow or work only when you are using wifi . storage can be capped.
- hatsunearu 10y ago
  The idea is that companies or people backing the content could easily provision more nodes to meet the demand. To create an IPFS "host", its super simple: ipfs pin myhash

teekert 10y ago

Well apart from battery, If I was an ISP, I´d like it if a Youtube movie would flow from one persons mobile to the hotspot of the train said person is sitting on and on towards another person on the train. This scenario would require significantly less bandwidth overall. Same goes for neighbors accessing the same information. And this can be extrapolated to many situations. The IPFS powered internet would perhaps lead to more uploads but it would scale significantly better and will be cheaper to maintain. Hence cost can also go down for end users/consumers.

clueless404 10y ago
> Well apart from battery, ... and that's pretty much the deal killer for this on mobile, even ignoring everything else. > If I was an ISP, I´d like it if a Youtube movie ... except you are not allowed to download videos from YouTube or most (if not all) the popular video content services. > a Youtube movie would flow from one persons mobile to the hotspot of the train said person is sitting on and on towards another person on the train. This would only work as long as person A is running IPFS, connected to the hotspot and has any cached content somebody else is concurrently interested in. The hotspot is very unlikely to run IPFS and to have any storage, so cache hit ratios would not only be low they would be dependent on person A's transit schedule. > This scenario would require significantly less bandwidth overall. No, the same amount of bandwidth would be consumed, but perhaps over a cheaper radio bearer. > The IPFS powered internet would perhaps lead to more uploads but it would scale significantly better and will be cheaper to maintain. Somehow I doubt that. Total costs would most likely go up, but they would perhaps be more spread out. > Hence cost can also go down for end users/consumers. Consumers don't spend anything for accessing content on the Internet, so I really doubt there are any cost savings to be had.
- teekert 10y ago
  > ... and that's pretty much the deal killer for this on mobile, even ignoring everything else. It is, for now, indeed. > Except you are not allowed to download videos from YouTube I think youtube would be interested in some load balancing if they could keep the income from commercials. Wait, what, there wouldn't be a need for YouTube. We'd only need a way to pay content creators build into the system (Ethereum coupling somehow?? I'm not sure, can views be tracked in IPFS?). > This scenario would require significantly less bandwidth overall. The same amount of bits are pumped around but they have to cover significantly less physical distance and hubs. This reduces bandwidth. > Somehow I doubt that. Total costs would most likely go up, but they would perhaps be more spread out. Me pumping bits from my neighbor's house to mine instead of us both via the backbone from some server in a central location requires less (expensive) infrastructure between me and that central location. > Consumers don't spend anything for accessing content on the Internet indirectly they (we) pay for the copper and the fiber.

dredmorbius 10y ago

It's trivial to provision a mobile device with 128GB+ storage these days. Non-mobile devices start at $5. A considerable server is <$100. Even only modest amounts of server persistence allow for a powerful distributed net.