4 ms·

That's a nice initiative. BitTorrent files are also content addressable, and the DHT allows for routing to several provider nodes. Only files that are download

by antpls 8y ago

That's a nice initiative. BitTorrent files are also content addressable, and the DHT allows for routing to several provider nodes. Only files that are downloaded are shared too. What's the plus-value of IPFS over BitTorrent in this scenario?

lgierth 8y ago
Torrents don't have the concept of links at all, they're not a web. Also: Being able to inter-link any content-addressed data structures. With IPLD [1], you can link from an IPFS directory to a Bitcoin transaction, to a Git repository, to a Torrent. [1] https://ipld.io https://ipld.io && https://github.com/ipld/ipld#implementations https://github.com/ipld/ipld#implementations
- antpls 8y ago
  From what I understand from the ipld.io website, IPLD allows to add links to any content-adressable systems. BitTorrent + IPLD could be an alternative to IPFS, I guess? (BTW, notice that BitTorrent isnt used as an example on the front page). When I looked at IPFS some months ago, it looked like a lot of on-going work. It wasn't clear to me what was new and what were the reusable components of the project, and what was reused from the past. In BitTorrent, the DHT for example is a reusable block emerged from previous P2P systems, but it didn't try to reinvent the wheel, and it didn't try to add a FS on top of it, so it solves a specific problem. "IPFS" does a lot of things at once, it would be clearer if the project was cut into sub-specifications that could be reused with legacy protocols. Tho I believe the project is going into that direction, and for example IPLD emerged from it. IPLD looks like a real step-forward. It looks like a "federation" of previous content-addressable protocols, to make them work together, rather than trying to compete with them. BitTorrent + IPLD makes more sense than IPFS to me, more developers have a heard of BitTorrent and they knows what are BitTorrent features, so the introduction of a concept on top of it is easier to grasp.
- imhoguy 8y ago
  > Torrents don't have the concept of links at all, they're not a web. BitTorrent has content-addressable links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_URI_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_URI_scheme You can perfectly form a web with BitTorrent network by sharing e.g. HTML file which links to further resources.
zapita 8y ago
One advantage of IPFS is its developer ecosystem. They are very focused on providing building blocks to developers, and there is a very active open-source community building on top of it. Contrast this with Bittorrent which is more mature and has more nodes (I think), but is less flexible and not designed for me to build interesting new applications on top of it. It's definitely possible to hack cool things on top of Bittorrent, but you'll spend more time navigating arcane documentations and deserted web discussion forums... The difference in community momentum is palpable.
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  I disagree with that. Implementing Bittorrent is relatively straightforward, it has specs and a bunch of independent implementations exist. While IPFS is mostly a single code project with obscure docs and push to use that code, rather than making your own implementation.
  - diggan 8y ago
    Hm, last time I counted, there are three implementations of libp2p (networking stack from IPFS) in Golang, JavaScript and Rust. Multiformats are also implemented in 5+ languages. The official core implementations are two right now (JS + GO) but there are probably more around, but I personally haven't seen them. Well, one C or C++ as well but cannot find the link for that one right now. But I agree that in general there are not as many implementations and/or specifications as with BitTorrent.
    - zzzcpan 8y ago
      But I don't want to rely on that libp2p or any ipfs code for that matter.
  - zapita 8y ago
    Yes, it is well documented and you can easily find examples. But for atypical use cases you won't find a very lively community to discuss with (and with Bittorrent, there is not a lot of variety in use cases). There's just less activity around building new things. At least that's been my experience.

by antpls 8y ago

lgierth 8y ago

Torrents don't have the concept of links at all, they're not a web. Also: Being able to inter-link any content-addressed data structures. With IPLD [1], you can link from an IPFS directory to a Bitcoin transaction, to a Git repository, to a Torrent. [1] https://ipld.io https://ipld.io && https://github.com/ipld/ipld#implementations https://github.com/ipld/ipld#implementations

antpls 8y ago
From what I understand from the ipld.io website, IPLD allows to add links to any content-adressable systems. BitTorrent + IPLD could be an alternative to IPFS, I guess? (BTW, notice that BitTorrent isnt used as an example on the front page). When I looked at IPFS some months ago, it looked like a lot of on-going work. It wasn't clear to me what was new and what were the reusable components of the project, and what was reused from the past. In BitTorrent, the DHT for example is a reusable block emerged from previous P2P systems, but it didn't try to reinvent the wheel, and it didn't try to add a FS on top of it, so it solves a specific problem. "IPFS" does a lot of things at once, it would be clearer if the project was cut into sub-specifications that could be reused with legacy protocols. Tho I believe the project is going into that direction, and for example IPLD emerged from it. IPLD looks like a real step-forward. It looks like a "federation" of previous content-addressable protocols, to make them work together, rather than trying to compete with them. BitTorrent + IPLD makes more sense than IPFS to me, more developers have a heard of BitTorrent and they knows what are BitTorrent features, so the introduction of a concept on top of it is easier to grasp.
imhoguy 8y ago
> Torrents don't have the concept of links at all, they're not a web. BitTorrent has content-addressable links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_URI_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_URI_scheme You can perfectly form a web with BitTorrent network by sharing e.g. HTML file which links to further resources.

zapita 8y ago

One advantage of IPFS is its developer ecosystem. They are very focused on providing building blocks to developers, and there is a very active open-source community building on top of it. Contrast this with Bittorrent which is more mature and has more nodes (I think), but is less flexible and not designed for me to build interesting new applications on top of it. It's definitely possible to hack cool things on top of Bittorrent, but you'll spend more time navigating arcane documentations and deserted web discussion forums... The difference in community momentum is palpable.

zzzcpan 8y ago
I disagree with that. Implementing Bittorrent is relatively straightforward, it has specs and a bunch of independent implementations exist. While IPFS is mostly a single code project with obscure docs and push to use that code, rather than making your own implementation.
- diggan 8y ago
  Hm, last time I counted, there are three implementations of libp2p (networking stack from IPFS) in Golang, JavaScript and Rust. Multiformats are also implemented in 5+ languages. The official core implementations are two right now (JS + GO) but there are probably more around, but I personally haven't seen them. Well, one C or C++ as well but cannot find the link for that one right now. But I agree that in general there are not as many implementations and/or specifications as with BitTorrent.
  - zzzcpan 8y ago
    But I don't want to rely on that libp2p or any ipfs code for that matter.
- zapita 8y ago
  Yes, it is well documented and you can easily find examples. But for atypical use cases you won't find a very lively community to discuss with (and with Bittorrent, there is not a lot of variety in use cases). There's just less activity around building new things. At least that's been my experience.