4 ms·
What do you think it sacrifices? IPFS is more focused on static blob addressing while Dat focuses on data sources, and in that sense, there’s a single authority
by tbv 9y ago
What do you think it sacrifices? IPFS is more focused on static blob addressing while Dat focuses on data sources, and in that sense, there’s a single authority over a dataset. But I see that as a positive, since mutability is pretty valuable.
TBH, I'm not sure how a site can work without mutability.
- GhotiFish 9y agoa dynamic site can't work without mutability, ipfs can't deal with mutability, so ipfs comes with ipns, which allows you to statically reference content that might change.
- tbv 9y agoYeah, IPFS + IPNS is effectively on par with Dat archive mutability, but mutability being built-in to Dat + its verifiable history log is particularly well-suited to building peer-to-peer websites
- vertex-four 9y agoOf course, the design of IPNS makes it impossible to prove that you've got the latest version of a name's value, and makes it relatively easy to attack. I don't know if Dat has the same issue, I haven't looked at it.
- lgierth 9y agoIt's not impossible by design, it's simply a feature that hasn't been implemented so far. IPFS is by design pluggable on all layers and thus theoretically capable of a ton of stuff.
- vertex-four 9y agoSo IPFS is, according to you, not defined as its protocol, but instead as its API? So I could build an IPFS implementation that just grabs stuff from my (centralised) web server and say I'm using IPFS? Either nonsense, or useless - the goal here, I thought, was to build a global decentralised filesystem that looks the same from everyone's perspective. All DHTs suffer from this issue. It's just particularly likely that IPNS's use of a DHT will lead to attacks. Making it not susceptible to this would require a redesign of IPNS's protocol.