3 ms·

Are there any design changes that could create organic adoption of IPFS? Or, conversely, what design decisions do you think have hindered adoption?

• dafoex 6y ago
  I've had a breif look at IPFS, but not enough to say anything with any amount of confidence. That said, the thing that immediately put me off was that everything seemed to want to be browser based, like starting some service that makes a local web server that acts as a GUI - there was even a chrome extension that tried to make this easy for you. A feature that might exist, but I haven't discovered, that would make IPFS more appealing to me, would be a way to mount the IPFS like it were an FTP server, and navigate it with whatever file manager you prefer and not have to worry about managing the backend stuff. That is to say, I'd like BTFS for IPFS.
  • AgentME 6y ago
    It's built into ipfs already: ipfs mount
• saurik 6y ago
  Given the other reply to your comment was someone who seriously thinks IPFS's core feature--being able to be used as a filesystem--doesn't exist, I guess I'll have to go with "better onboarding documentation" ;P.
• folmar 6y ago
  The lack of standard dns glue, i.e. a domain which turns to local client if you have it, web gateway like ipfs.io otherwise.