4 ms·

> Working on things like this is really interesting but it involves a lot of work to handle unreliable clients or networks and bitrot (hashes don't solve this i

> Working on things like this is really interesting but it involves a lot of work to handle unreliable clients or networks and bitrot (hashes don't solve this if your client helpfully replicates the bad sector from your desktop over the pristine copy on your phone). That overhead makes it a lot harder to beat conventional services, especially in cases where the time investment is greater than the possible savings. The idea that ipfs/related-project are trying to beat conventional services is big misconception. The overwhelming majority of the tech does not preclude usage in conventional services. For example, IPFS can 100% be configured as server/client offering roughly the same costs/reliability many are used to. The advantage is interoperability with many different "services", conventional and alternative (e.g. filecoin) alike.

acdha 6y ago
Can you expand that interoperability thought? It’s unclear to me how this could change the main obstruction of vendors choosing not to encourage interoperability - anyone who keeps their API locked down is unlikely to adopt standard IPFS.
- rudolph9 6y ago
  Essentially it's a separation of concerns. The content "address" (i.e. how we specify the content that is desired) and the content "location" (i.e. the connections which serve the content associated with an "address") are distinct. An "address" is also self validating. Hash addressing, where a hash of the data is the address of the data, are use to accomplish this. This is useful in many contexts and an [extra few bits][1] on the the front allow an address to represent much much more. "location" is by default a distributed hash table enabling the fulling distributed routing of content and by uses [Kademlia][0]. But the software could easily be configured to with fixed values for the hash table mapping any "address" to the same location which happens to be a cloud provider. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "anyone who keeps their API locked down is unlikely to adopt standard IPFS."? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kademlia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kademlia [2]: https://github.com/multiformats/cid#how-does-it-work https://github.com/multiformats/cid#how-does-it-work

acdha 6y ago

Can you expand that interoperability thought? It’s unclear to me how this could change the main obstruction of vendors choosing not to encourage interoperability - anyone who keeps their API locked down is unlikely to adopt standard IPFS.

rudolph9 6y ago
Essentially it's a separation of concerns. The content "address" (i.e. how we specify the content that is desired) and the content "location" (i.e. the connections which serve the content associated with an "address") are distinct. An "address" is also self validating. Hash addressing, where a hash of the data is the address of the data, are use to accomplish this. This is useful in many contexts and an [extra few bits][1] on the the front allow an address to represent much much more. "location" is by default a distributed hash table enabling the fulling distributed routing of content and by uses [Kademlia][0]. But the software could easily be configured to with fixed values for the hash table mapping any "address" to the same location which happens to be a cloud provider. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "anyone who keeps their API locked down is unlikely to adopt standard IPFS."? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kademlia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kademlia [2]: https://github.com/multiformats/cid#how-does-it-work https://github.com/multiformats/cid#how-does-it-work