3 ms·

Anyone knows a good comparison of Day, ZeroNet, and IPFS? Why did Beaker chose Dat rather than the other two? I've played with IPFS and ZeroNet (my web page is

by p4bl0 8y ago

Anyone knows a good comparison of Day, ZeroNet, and IPFS? Why did Beaker chose Dat rather than the other two? I've played with IPFS and ZeroNet (my web page is available on those networks too), but never with Dat.

vitovito 8y ago
My understanding is that Beaker initially supported both Dat and IPFS, but dropped IPFS in favor of Dat for a variety of reasons, some of which were discussed in this other HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16434057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16434057 From a user perspective, Dat (and ZeroNet) maps to folders and filesystems much more coherently than IPFS does. I evaluated a few systems for a single use case in this Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/vitor_io/status/1019271473771569153 https://twitter.com/vitor_io/status/1019271473771569153
- p4bl0 8y ago
  > From a user perspective, Dat (and ZeroNet) maps to folders and filesystems much more coherently than IPFS does. How so? Once you have the hash of a folder in IPFS you can access its files and subfolders using the classic slash notation. Take for example my web page at /ipns/pablo.rauzy.name, the structure under that folder is exactly the same as it is on the classical web version of my web page, and is accessed in the same way.
  - vitovito 8y ago
    Access it, yes, but you can't update it. Dat and ZeroNet both let you maintain a single hash with dynamic contents. Your web page points to different hashes over time through IPNS, which is additional work for a user, and relies on IPNS instead of being part of IPFS directly.
    - p4bl0 8y ago
      Right. It's not possible to have both content based addresses (like IPFS) and identify based addresses (like ZeroNet, apparently Dat, but also Tor, I2P, and IPNS). To me as a user, IPNS additional work isn't much more than sitePublish and then siteSign in ZeroNet. The first is equivalent to ipfs add, the second to ipfs name publish.

by p4bl0 8y ago

vitovito 8y ago

My understanding is that Beaker initially supported both Dat and IPFS, but dropped IPFS in favor of Dat for a variety of reasons, some of which were discussed in this other HN post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16434057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16434057 From a user perspective, Dat (and ZeroNet) maps to folders and filesystems much more coherently than IPFS does. I evaluated a few systems for a single use case in this Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/vitor_io/status/1019271473771569153 https://twitter.com/vitor_io/status/1019271473771569153

p4bl0 8y ago
> From a user perspective, Dat (and ZeroNet) maps to folders and filesystems much more coherently than IPFS does. How so? Once you have the hash of a folder in IPFS you can access its files and subfolders using the classic slash notation. Take for example my web page at /ipns/pablo.rauzy.name, the structure under that folder is exactly the same as it is on the classical web version of my web page, and is accessed in the same way.
- vitovito 8y ago
  Access it, yes, but you can't update it. Dat and ZeroNet both let you maintain a single hash with dynamic contents. Your web page points to different hashes over time through IPNS, which is additional work for a user, and relies on IPNS instead of being part of IPFS directly.
  - p4bl0 8y ago
    Right. It's not possible to have both content based addresses (like IPFS) and identify based addresses (like ZeroNet, apparently Dat, but also Tor, I2P, and IPNS). To me as a user, IPNS additional work isn't much more than sitePublish and then siteSign in ZeroNet. The first is equivalent to ipfs add, the second to ipfs name publish.