5 ms·

I think the problem here isn't just Filecoin, it's Protocol Labs as a whole. I've been building applications using IPFS for about 3 years now, and the entire ti

I think the problem here isn't just Filecoin, it's Protocol Labs as a whole. I've been building applications using IPFS for about 3 years now, and the entire time Protocol Labs has dropped the ball at every corner when it comes to the development of IPFS. Basically any project I've seen started by Protocol Labs ends up a mess of a project so I'm not surprised Filecoin is where it is now. It's quite clear that Protocol Labs is extremely incapable of managing a project of scale.

rsa25519 6y ago
> Protocol Labs has dropped the ball at every corner when it comes to the development of IPFS. How so? I don't have much experience with IPFS, but I've heard great things about it
- bonedaddy 6y ago
  Primarily due to poor management of the project. The best way to showcase this is through something called "testground". Testground was an initiative started by Protocol Labs to create a solution that would be used for testing of IPFS at all levels of the protocols, while also giving developers an SDK that can be used to write new testground tests. The reason this was needed is because the before the Testground project was started, the last few releases of go-ipfs (the reference implementation of IPFS) introduced new bugs, and regressions. Why? Primarily because of the poor planning, poor test coverage, and overall poor project management. So Testground development started and went on for about 5 months until the developer in charge of Testground development makes a post on a GitHub issue (https://github.com/testground/testground/issues/42#issuecomment-569057553 https://github.com/testground/testground/issues/42#issuecomm...) Tl;dr of that comment? Poor project management lead to a lot of wasted development time on Testground. Irony of the whole situation aside, if this was an isolated incident it might not be so bad. But it's not an isolated incident, it happens all the time, and with every single project managed by Protocol Labs. Interestingly enough this latest post from Axios caused me to come out of the woodworks with my own series of posts about how Protocol Labs has failed both IPFS and Filecoin. I briefly detail a few more of the problems here (https://bonedaddy.io/blog/ipfs/posts/failure-ipfs-filecoin-protocol_labs/#the-problems https://bonedaddy.io/blog/ipfs/posts/failure-ipfs-filecoin-p...)
Taek 6y ago
Skynet is now a viable alternative to IPFS. It has much of the same functionality: upload a file, get a 34 byte link back, and now that link can be retrieved by any Skynet node. It's got support for things like webapps and HLS, and for many use cases it has superior performance (especially for large files). https://siasky.net https://siasky.net to get started
- bonedaddy 6y ago
  Don't forget to mention that you're shilling your own project ;)

rsa25519 6y ago

> Protocol Labs has dropped the ball at every corner when it comes to the development of IPFS. How so? I don't have much experience with IPFS, but I've heard great things about it

bonedaddy 6y ago
Primarily due to poor management of the project. The best way to showcase this is through something called "testground". Testground was an initiative started by Protocol Labs to create a solution that would be used for testing of IPFS at all levels of the protocols, while also giving developers an SDK that can be used to write new testground tests. The reason this was needed is because the before the Testground project was started, the last few releases of go-ipfs (the reference implementation of IPFS) introduced new bugs, and regressions. Why? Primarily because of the poor planning, poor test coverage, and overall poor project management. So Testground development started and went on for about 5 months until the developer in charge of Testground development makes a post on a GitHub issue (https://github.com/testground/testground/issues/42#issuecomment-569057553 https://github.com/testground/testground/issues/42#issuecomm...) Tl;dr of that comment? Poor project management lead to a lot of wasted development time on Testground. Irony of the whole situation aside, if this was an isolated incident it might not be so bad. But it's not an isolated incident, it happens all the time, and with every single project managed by Protocol Labs. Interestingly enough this latest post from Axios caused me to come out of the woodworks with my own series of posts about how Protocol Labs has failed both IPFS and Filecoin. I briefly detail a few more of the problems here (https://bonedaddy.io/blog/ipfs/posts/failure-ipfs-filecoin-protocol_labs/#the-problems https://bonedaddy.io/blog/ipfs/posts/failure-ipfs-filecoin-p...)

Taek 6y ago

Skynet is now a viable alternative to IPFS. It has much of the same functionality: upload a file, get a 34 byte link back, and now that link can be retrieved by any Skynet node. It's got support for things like webapps and HLS, and for many use cases it has superior performance (especially for large files). https://siasky.net https://siasky.net to get started

bonedaddy 6y ago
Don't forget to mention that you're shilling your own project ;)