9 ms·

It's kind of funny that the example link to a "permanent" object still returns a 404 ("ipfs resolve -r /ipns/QmTodvhq9CUS9hH8rirt4YmihxJKZ5tYez8PtDmpWrVMKP: Cou

It's kind of funny that the example link to a "permanent" object still returns a 404 ("ipfs resolve -r /ipns/QmTodvhq9CUS9hH8rirt4YmihxJKZ5tYez8PtDmpWrVMKP: Could not resolve name.") I totally want the web to magically be distributed too, but clearly not even the author is bothering to host their IPFS content anymore...

__s 9y ago
> IPNS isn’t done yet, so if that link doesn’t work, don’t fret. Just know that I will be able to change what that pubkeyhash points to, but the pubkeyhash will always remain the same. When it’s done, it will solve the site updating problem.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  That's how these things always work, by saying "it will work one day." If it would work, and the cost benefit ratio were there, people would adopt it quickly. That's what happens with just about everything else.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    Mo it isn't. I was trying to get small-medium businesses interested in a thing called email in 1990 and it was a hard sell.
    - IncRnd 9y ago
      Of course it was a hard sell! The cost/benefit wasn't right for that business in 1990...
  - neutronbits 9y ago
    Wow! What an ignorant view of technology adoption! Almost, every revolutionary technology you see today (right from radio and A/C current to personal computers and deep learning) did not work fine once upon a time. It is because people kept saying, "it will work one day", and continued working on them that we have these technologies making our life simpler these days.
    - chii 9y ago
      true for revolutionary new technology. Not true for incremental technology that aims to replace an existing similar technology. Especially if the incremental tech is something that most "normal" people don't really care about (such as hosting content on the internet).
      - hobofan 9y ago
        A distributed web (including proper mesh networks) has the potential of changing the status quo from constantly worrying about data limits and "I don't have any wifi" to "normal" people having constant "internet" access everywhere they go. I think they don't care much about the underlying technology, but they will notice when some apps work faster and without a mobile data connection when others don't.
        ketzu 9y ago
        Couldn't people build webapps like this today by heavy caching and storing data locally?
        hobofan 9y ago
        To some degree yes, but with IPFS that becomes easier in my experience. Even with static websites you usually need to have a web server you are able to connect to, or have to go out of your way to add a Webworker that makes is offline-capable. There a single address that is served via an IPFS gateway behaves better with less additional tooling.
        TeMPOraL 9y ago
        In terms of caching, think of IPFS as making every node in the network also a dynamic CDN, with content automatically moving closer to the people who use it - including into your LAN.
        mseebach 9y ago
        > changing the status quo from constantly worrying about data limits and "I don't have any wifi" to "normal" people having constant "internet" access everywhere they go. So will rapidly increasing data allowances and cellular coverage. Plenty of European countries have effectively unlimited data packages and effectively complete network coverage. Crucially, whatever gaps there are in this are very likely to get filled through already underway progress much faster than a distributed web on mesh networks will get to a usable stage.
  - jwfxpr 9y ago
    > If it would work, and the cost benefit ratio were there, people would adopt it quickly. That's what happens with just about everything else. Great point! Just like: * Betamax * HD DVD * Minidisc * Hoverboards * IPV6 * DNSSEC * PGP & PKI * Linux desktops * Dvorak keyboards * The metric system * Decimal time * [flavour-of-the-month programming language] * [flavour-of-the-month database] * [flavour-of-the-month cypher] * ... The factors that influence the proliferation of a technology are wildly divergent from the criteria 'works well, cost/benefit'. I'm not even sure those are weakly correlated proxy indicators of technology uptake.
    - katastic 9y ago
      Actually, it's pretty simple. "Better" has to actually "be better ENOUGH" to warrant all of the retooling of existing systems. I've got plenty of clients who would happily run Windows 2003 ("it's paid for") if it weren't for changing standards that aren't compatible (newer TLS, Exchange, etc) and security breaches. They only upgrade because they have to. "E-mail is e-mail" to them. But if you sell them some magical new technology that promises to meet new features, like tons of data analysis tools and easily graphs and charts in a new version of CRM, they'll happily upgrade.
      - lgierth 9y ago
        Another important factor for adoption/adoptability is how well the new system integrates with existing deployments of older systems. Ideally it completely interoperates with the older systems, while providing you with additional value right from the start.
        carolc 9y ago
        Agreed with lgierth and I believe this is what sets IPFS apart from many similar technologies: integration path for existing technologies. As far as I can tell, it has been an important design decision from early on for IPFS.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        That only answers some of those examples. It's pretty visible in tech that it's not actually the only (or main) reason, especially when you see companies continuously switching from one crappy tool to another. Tech is a fashion-driven industry; companies use what is hot and/or what everyone else is using. Both of those create a positive feedback loop that amplifies brief spikes in popularity (easily exploitable through marketing) beyond any reasonable proportion. The worst thing is, though, that it kind of makes sense from the POV of management. The more popular something is, the less risk there is in using it, especially when the decisionmaker doesn't have enough knowledge to evaluate the options. Also, the more mainstream a given technology is, the cheaper and easier to replace programmers.
- matchagaucho 9y ago
  DNS does that too?
- jlrbuellv 9y ago
  Yeah, I saw that, but it's two years later and it still doesn't work? Not to be snarky, but my limited understanding is that IPNS is really the only novel part of IPFS anyway; if I just want to share a file peer-to-peer based on the hash of the content, bittorrent has existed for ages. It just seems silly to talk about how HTTP is unreliable because your severs might go down, when the alternative "serverless" architecture you're hyping doesn't work either. I'm totally on board with the aims of IPFS and hope they accomplish all the things they're trying to do, but to say HTTP is obsolete when HTTP works and IPFS doesn't (yet) is just a little too much...
mgalka 9y ago
Funny? Yes. Relevant? No. The post makes the case for why IPFS should replace HTTP -- has nothing to do with how well the technology works right now in its infancy.
- akvadrako 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure at this point in it's lifetime HTTP worked better than IPFS does now.

__s 9y ago

> IPNS isn’t done yet, so if that link doesn’t work, don’t fret. Just know that I will be able to change what that pubkeyhash points to, but the pubkeyhash will always remain the same. When it’s done, it will solve the site updating problem.

IncRnd 9y ago
That's how these things always work, by saying "it will work one day." If it would work, and the cost benefit ratio were there, people would adopt it quickly. That's what happens with just about everything else.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Mo it isn't. I was trying to get small-medium businesses interested in a thing called email in 1990 and it was a hard sell.
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    Of course it was a hard sell! The cost/benefit wasn't right for that business in 1990...
- neutronbits 9y ago
  Wow! What an ignorant view of technology adoption! Almost, every revolutionary technology you see today (right from radio and A/C current to personal computers and deep learning) did not work fine once upon a time. It is because people kept saying, "it will work one day", and continued working on them that we have these technologies making our life simpler these days.
  - chii 9y ago
    true for revolutionary new technology. Not true for incremental technology that aims to replace an existing similar technology. Especially if the incremental tech is something that most "normal" people don't really care about (such as hosting content on the internet).
    - hobofan 9y ago
      A distributed web (including proper mesh networks) has the potential of changing the status quo from constantly worrying about data limits and "I don't have any wifi" to "normal" people having constant "internet" access everywhere they go. I think they don't care much about the underlying technology, but they will notice when some apps work faster and without a mobile data connection when others don't.
      - ketzu 9y ago
        Couldn't people build webapps like this today by heavy caching and storing data locally?
        hobofan 9y ago
        To some degree yes, but with IPFS that becomes easier in my experience. Even with static websites you usually need to have a web server you are able to connect to, or have to go out of your way to add a Webworker that makes is offline-capable. There a single address that is served via an IPFS gateway behaves better with less additional tooling.
        TeMPOraL 9y ago
        In terms of caching, think of IPFS as making every node in the network also a dynamic CDN, with content automatically moving closer to the people who use it - including into your LAN.
      - mseebach 9y ago
        > changing the status quo from constantly worrying about data limits and "I don't have any wifi" to "normal" people having constant "internet" access everywhere they go. So will rapidly increasing data allowances and cellular coverage. Plenty of European countries have effectively unlimited data packages and effectively complete network coverage. Crucially, whatever gaps there are in this are very likely to get filled through already underway progress much faster than a distributed web on mesh networks will get to a usable stage.
- jwfxpr 9y ago
  > If it would work, and the cost benefit ratio were there, people would adopt it quickly. That's what happens with just about everything else. Great point! Just like: * Betamax * HD DVD * Minidisc * Hoverboards * IPV6 * DNSSEC * PGP & PKI * Linux desktops * Dvorak keyboards * The metric system * Decimal time * [flavour-of-the-month programming language] * [flavour-of-the-month database] * [flavour-of-the-month cypher] * ... The factors that influence the proliferation of a technology are wildly divergent from the criteria 'works well, cost/benefit'. I'm not even sure those are weakly correlated proxy indicators of technology uptake.
  - katastic 9y ago
    Actually, it's pretty simple. "Better" has to actually "be better ENOUGH" to warrant all of the retooling of existing systems. I've got plenty of clients who would happily run Windows 2003 ("it's paid for") if it weren't for changing standards that aren't compatible (newer TLS, Exchange, etc) and security breaches. They only upgrade because they have to. "E-mail is e-mail" to them. But if you sell them some magical new technology that promises to meet new features, like tons of data analysis tools and easily graphs and charts in a new version of CRM, they'll happily upgrade.
    - lgierth 9y ago
      Another important factor for adoption/adoptability is how well the new system integrates with existing deployments of older systems. Ideally it completely interoperates with the older systems, while providing you with additional value right from the start.
      - carolc 9y ago
        Agreed with lgierth and I believe this is what sets IPFS apart from many similar technologies: integration path for existing technologies. As far as I can tell, it has been an important design decision from early on for IPFS.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      That only answers some of those examples. It's pretty visible in tech that it's not actually the only (or main) reason, especially when you see companies continuously switching from one crappy tool to another. Tech is a fashion-driven industry; companies use what is hot and/or what everyone else is using. Both of those create a positive feedback loop that amplifies brief spikes in popularity (easily exploitable through marketing) beyond any reasonable proportion. The worst thing is, though, that it kind of makes sense from the POV of management. The more popular something is, the less risk there is in using it, especially when the decisionmaker doesn't have enough knowledge to evaluate the options. Also, the more mainstream a given technology is, the cheaper and easier to replace programmers.
matchagaucho 9y ago
DNS does that too?
jlrbuellv 9y ago
Yeah, I saw that, but it's two years later and it still doesn't work? Not to be snarky, but my limited understanding is that IPNS is really the only novel part of IPFS anyway; if I just want to share a file peer-to-peer based on the hash of the content, bittorrent has existed for ages. It just seems silly to talk about how HTTP is unreliable because your severs might go down, when the alternative "serverless" architecture you're hyping doesn't work either. I'm totally on board with the aims of IPFS and hope they accomplish all the things they're trying to do, but to say HTTP is obsolete when HTTP works and IPFS doesn't (yet) is just a little too much...

mgalka 9y ago

Funny? Yes. Relevant? No. The post makes the case for why IPFS should replace HTTP -- has nothing to do with how well the technology works right now in its infancy.

akvadrako 9y ago
I'm pretty sure at this point in it's lifetime HTTP worked better than IPFS does now.