5 ms·

Hey, ipfs dev here. The amount of work being done on ipfs has been increasing continually. Work on filecoin is not detracting from ipfs development, and we are

Hey, ipfs dev here. The amount of work being done on ipfs has been increasing continually. Work on filecoin is not detracting from ipfs development, and we are bringing on more people for ipfs, libp2p and filecoin.

throwawayico 9y ago
That doesn't discount the fact you are involved in yet another ICO. Cryptocurency integration and identity within IPFS could have been done without a new coin. I know you know this, yet you choose to do it anyway. That means we should question your intentions, across all your projects. And, just for the record, a cryptocurrency fund raise is simply selling access to given private/public key pairs which contain values, like a database. Even hardened by mining, these values and keys are intrinsically worthless until they are used widely for something valuable. It's when convincing someone it's "valuable because you think it is" that it gets "tricky".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- whyrusleeping 9y ago
  > Cryptocurency integration and identity within IPFS could have been done without a new coin I don't think thats a fair claim to make. There are many attacks on 'pay for distributed storage' that Filecoin addresses. Take a look at [the paper](https://filecoin.io/filecoin.pdf https://filecoin.io/filecoin.pdf), in particular section 3.1 where we discuss sybil attacks, Outsourcing attacks, and generation attacks. We cover a lot of cases, and build in incentives to continually increase the amount of available storage and push down the price-per-byte. If we thought it was possible to properly incentivize data storage on ipfs without building a blockchain, we would have done so.
- rklaehn 9y ago
  I don't get all the hatred for ICOs. Nobody is forcing anybody to invest in them, and for something like filecoin there is at least a chance of something extremely useful coming out of it. Many other ICOs seem pretty strange to me, but as long as I am not forced to invest in them, what's the problem?
  - nileshtrivedi 9y ago
    Can't say so if it is a Ponzi scheme.
jstanley 9y ago
Glad to hear it :)
dheera 9y ago
Just a thought here, but perhaps the ICO wasted them less time than months of meetings trying to raise funds with angels and VCs. You could say Filecoin is a distraction, but in trying to raise seed money, 50 VCs arranging 100 meetings, 5 verbally committing to you a measly $1M each and negotiate over investment terms while you try to live on ramen, and then 3 out of the 5 backing out in the process, is arguably a MUCH bigger distraction to getting any real work done. It also causes a lot of actual brain rot when you spend that much consecutive time away from tech.
- tfha 9y ago
  If you think doing traditional fundraising is bad, you should try doing an ICO. Easily 5x worse.
  - fapjacks 9y ago
    Can you shed some light on this? How are you involved with fundraising via ICO? And how is it so much worse? If anything, I would guess it would be loads easier than traditional fundraising, because so many people seem willing to park their cryptocurrency in various ICOs with pretty much zero due diligence or justification other than it exists.
    - tfha 9y ago
      The legal and PR hurdles you have to go through, but especially the legal hurdles, are a lot more substantial.
Nokinside 9y ago
filecoin taints the crediblity of ipfs by assosiation.
yanivtal 9y ago
Hey I've been reading a lot of your code in libp2p. Thanks for your amazing contributions to opensource!
- whyrusleeping 9y ago
  Thank you! that means a lot :)

throwawayico 9y ago

That doesn't discount the fact you are involved in yet another ICO. Cryptocurency integration and identity within IPFS could have been done without a new coin. I know you know this, yet you choose to do it anyway. That means we should question your intentions, across all your projects. And, just for the record, a cryptocurrency fund raise is simply selling access to given private/public key pairs which contain values, like a database. Even hardened by mining, these values and keys are intrinsically worthless until they are used widely for something valuable. It's when convincing someone it's "valuable because you think it is" that it gets "tricky".

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
whyrusleeping 9y ago
> Cryptocurency integration and identity within IPFS could have been done without a new coin I don't think thats a fair claim to make. There are many attacks on 'pay for distributed storage' that Filecoin addresses. Take a look at [the paper](https://filecoin.io/filecoin.pdf https://filecoin.io/filecoin.pdf), in particular section 3.1 where we discuss sybil attacks, Outsourcing attacks, and generation attacks. We cover a lot of cases, and build in incentives to continually increase the amount of available storage and push down the price-per-byte. If we thought it was possible to properly incentivize data storage on ipfs without building a blockchain, we would have done so.
rklaehn 9y ago
I don't get all the hatred for ICOs. Nobody is forcing anybody to invest in them, and for something like filecoin there is at least a chance of something extremely useful coming out of it. Many other ICOs seem pretty strange to me, but as long as I am not forced to invest in them, what's the problem?
- nileshtrivedi 9y ago
  Can't say so if it is a Ponzi scheme.

jstanley 9y ago

Glad to hear it :)

dheera 9y ago

Just a thought here, but perhaps the ICO wasted them less time than months of meetings trying to raise funds with angels and VCs. You could say Filecoin is a distraction, but in trying to raise seed money, 50 VCs arranging 100 meetings, 5 verbally committing to you a measly $1M each and negotiate over investment terms while you try to live on ramen, and then 3 out of the 5 backing out in the process, is arguably a MUCH bigger distraction to getting any real work done. It also causes a lot of actual brain rot when you spend that much consecutive time away from tech.

tfha 9y ago
If you think doing traditional fundraising is bad, you should try doing an ICO. Easily 5x worse.
- fapjacks 9y ago
  Can you shed some light on this? How are you involved with fundraising via ICO? And how is it so much worse? If anything, I would guess it would be loads easier than traditional fundraising, because so many people seem willing to park their cryptocurrency in various ICOs with pretty much zero due diligence or justification other than it exists.
  - tfha 9y ago
    The legal and PR hurdles you have to go through, but especially the legal hurdles, are a lot more substantial.

Nokinside 9y ago

filecoin taints the crediblity of ipfs by assosiation.

yanivtal 9y ago

Hey I've been reading a lot of your code in libp2p. Thanks for your amazing contributions to opensource!

whyrusleeping 9y ago
Thank you! that means a lot :)