4 ms·

The web already is decentralized. Most HTTP requests are fulfilled by a computer that is part of a CDN, not by the publishers computer. IPFS is like Wikipedia,

The web already is decentralized. Most HTTP requests are fulfilled by a computer that is part of a CDN, not by the publishers computer. IPFS is like Wikipedia, Uber, AirBnB. There have been encyclopedias, taxis and hotels before. But now it's easier to participate. My computer has this article cached right now. So if my neighbor want to read it, he could get it from me. The infrastructure is just not there yet. IPFS will add it.

nodja 9y ago
I disagree, the internet is very much centralized. In your example, this very post on HN points to an https url. An url that for now, means this article, but years from now might land in a 404 page, or a dns not found. Sure I can use the internet archive or find your post here on HN and ask you for it. But those are alternative services, they're not part of http. IPFS ensures that a url means one thing and one thing only, if changes, the url changes. No censorship, no ninja edits, as long as someone in world is willing to host that specific url, the ipfs protocol will serve it.
- the-dude 9y ago
  But will there be a server which serves it?
- skybrian 9y ago
  Immutable data has its place, but you wouldn't want to use that for Hacker News because reloading the page wouldn't show new comments. Also, when someone edits a comment here, usually that's either harmless or beneficial.
  - notheguyouthink 9y ago
    Fwiw, IPNS is mutable - you wouldn't use applications directly over IPFS, you'd view them over IPNS. So it has mutability in the sense that a single address can change content over time. It's nice though, in that if it's important that content stays the same, it always will.
    - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
      IPNS is virtually unusable at this stage. It's super slow that most people who use IPFS just use IPFS directly and try to come up with their own solution for this. I do hope they figure out how to solve this problem but looking at the discussions around the issue, it doesn't sound like something that can be easily solved, maybe never.
      - diggan 9y ago
        I left you a comment addressing the IPNS slowness here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16434057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16434057 Short version: we know, it sucks and we have a couple of ways of making it better, fear not I also want to add that we have many other ways of doing mutable data over IPFS, not just IPNS. While IPNS is a naming system, having services on protocols with streams or using pubsub can also give you the ability to do mutable state in your application.
alex_duf 9y ago
This may be an overblown response, but I can't help to give my opinion about centralisation. I think the web is decentralised, but has never been that centralised. What I'm about to say is about the Internet in a broader meaning, but applies to the web just as well. A few actors own most of the servers (aws, google, ovh, azure), a few actors own most of the personal data (google, facebook, amazon) and a few actors own the pipes to transfer the data between users and the above service (depends on the country, but on average 3 to 4 provider per country, often the same across borders). The fact CDNs are spread geographically has no impact on the balance of centralisation, as what matter - in my opinion - isn't about geographical distribution, but about power or ownership distribution. It's also very vertical due to the way we consume it (think asymmetrical bandwidth). We mostly depend on someone else's computer, or someone else's service, and has nothing to do with the utopic beginnings of the web when people were self-hosting their content on their machines. An example would be streaming: we only download stuff from Netflix or Youtube, when technologies like Bittorrent or webtorrent could be leveraged to limit the reliance on one actor. Technologically these actors aren't really single points of failure as they've learned to be reliable, but it's a matter of who has control over the Internet.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > A few actors own most of the servers OP is measuring on a graph where each node is a server. You are measuring on a graph where each node is a person. "De-centralisation" can usefully apply to both. The former measures resilience against technical risks. The latter against sociopolitical risks.
  - alex_duf 9y ago
    Yes, that is exactly my point (but maybe a bit verbose and convoluted :) )

nodja 9y ago

I disagree, the internet is very much centralized. In your example, this very post on HN points to an https url. An url that for now, means this article, but years from now might land in a 404 page, or a dns not found. Sure I can use the internet archive or find your post here on HN and ask you for it. But those are alternative services, they're not part of http. IPFS ensures that a url means one thing and one thing only, if changes, the url changes. No censorship, no ninja edits, as long as someone in world is willing to host that specific url, the ipfs protocol will serve it.

the-dude 9y ago
But will there be a server which serves it?
skybrian 9y ago
Immutable data has its place, but you wouldn't want to use that for Hacker News because reloading the page wouldn't show new comments. Also, when someone edits a comment here, usually that's either harmless or beneficial.
- notheguyouthink 9y ago
  Fwiw, IPNS is mutable - you wouldn't use applications directly over IPFS, you'd view them over IPNS. So it has mutability in the sense that a single address can change content over time. It's nice though, in that if it's important that content stays the same, it always will.
  - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
    IPNS is virtually unusable at this stage. It's super slow that most people who use IPFS just use IPFS directly and try to come up with their own solution for this. I do hope they figure out how to solve this problem but looking at the discussions around the issue, it doesn't sound like something that can be easily solved, maybe never.
    - diggan 9y ago
      I left you a comment addressing the IPNS slowness here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16434057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16434057 Short version: we know, it sucks and we have a couple of ways of making it better, fear not I also want to add that we have many other ways of doing mutable data over IPFS, not just IPNS. While IPNS is a naming system, having services on protocols with streams or using pubsub can also give you the ability to do mutable state in your application.

alex_duf 9y ago

This may be an overblown response, but I can't help to give my opinion about centralisation. I think the web is decentralised, but has never been that centralised. What I'm about to say is about the Internet in a broader meaning, but applies to the web just as well. A few actors own most of the servers (aws, google, ovh, azure), a few actors own most of the personal data (google, facebook, amazon) and a few actors own the pipes to transfer the data between users and the above service (depends on the country, but on average 3 to 4 provider per country, often the same across borders). The fact CDNs are spread geographically has no impact on the balance of centralisation, as what matter - in my opinion - isn't about geographical distribution, but about power or ownership distribution. It's also very vertical due to the way we consume it (think asymmetrical bandwidth). We mostly depend on someone else's computer, or someone else's service, and has nothing to do with the utopic beginnings of the web when people were self-hosting their content on their machines. An example would be streaming: we only download stuff from Netflix or Youtube, when technologies like Bittorrent or webtorrent could be leveraged to limit the reliance on one actor. Technologically these actors aren't really single points of failure as they've learned to be reliable, but it's a matter of who has control over the Internet.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> A few actors own most of the servers OP is measuring on a graph where each node is a server. You are measuring on a graph where each node is a person. "De-centralisation" can usefully apply to both. The former measures resilience against technical risks. The latter against sociopolitical risks.
- alex_duf 9y ago
  Yes, that is exactly my point (but maybe a bit verbose and convoluted :) )