3 ms·

make no mistake: ipfs _by_itself_ is no more "anonymous" than torrenting or other types of file sharing ftp/sftp/ssh/http/whatever... because they can always g

• Xeoncross 9y ago
  Sorry, the reference to Tor is misleading. I was not referring to anonymity but rather access to content from restricted areas like the Middle East or Asia.
  • HarfTarf 9y ago
    In that sense, I would agree, ipfs can provide access to content that would otherwise be blocked.
    • mtgx 9y ago
      Could ISPs throttle IPFS content the same way they did with torrents a while ago? (and probably will again once net neutrality falls).
      • lgierth 9y ago
        Sure -- but libp2p's network transports underneath are pluggable. There's already Websockets (/ws, think domain fronting! [1]) and Tor (/onion) transports, so there's various options for evading censorship (I personally consider bandwidth throttling a form of censorship). [1] Domain fronting lets you use a well-established web frontend for your web service. E.g. we could host /ws nodes in Google Cloud, and to the ISP the TLS handshake looks like it's for google.com, while inside the connection there's e.g. a `Host: libp2p.googlecloud.com` header. More info: https://www.bamsoftware.com/papers/fronting/ https://www.bamsoftware.com/papers/fronting/ But then again, net neutrality is a political issue! You don't solve it for good with technology.