4 ms·

There is no technology possible that removes said responsibility. This is how peer to peer systems work. Your criticism is something that no peer to peer system

There is no technology possible that removes said responsibility. This is how peer to peer systems work. Your criticism is something that no peer to peer system claims to solve.

9000 6y ago
Actually, I recommend you check out Freenet [0], a project that's 20 years old. In fact, the Wikipedia page explicitly states: > Information flow in Freenet is different from networks like eMule or BitTorrent; in Freenet: > 1. A user wishing to share a file or update a freesite "inserts" the file "to the network" > 2. After "insertion" is finished, the publishing node is free to shut down, because the file is stored in the network. It will remain available for other users whether or not the original publishing node is online. No single node is responsible for the content; instead, it is replicated to many different nodes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet
- octopoc 6y ago
  Aren’t collaborative systems like that susceptible to abuse? E.g., an attacker could upload 1TB of noise and then shut down, reducing the network size by much more than 1TB.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  Of course, in Freenet, if a file is not requested often it will quickly fall off the network due to user churn.
calibas 6y ago
He said that IPFS hosting is the "primary responsibility of a single party". The whole idea behind peer to peer is to avoid precisely that.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  Not really, if you want something to be perpetually available in any p2p network you need to ensure that you're still hosting it. That goes for torrents, ed2k, freenet, and ipfs too.
  - argvargc 6y ago
    This isn't true of most blockchain p2p networks, eg, Bitcoin. Anything uploaded to these lasts as long as the entire network does. The reason this works is it costs some amount to initially print the data to the network, limiting that kind of abuse.
    - aaomidi 6y ago
      And because there is money involved in making it last as long as the entire network. Once the monetary reasons drop then so does the data.
      - argvargc 6y ago
        It's possible for sure, but with Bitcoin and the overall crypto space steadily growing in value into the trillions over the course of over a decade, it seems unlikely.
  - calibas 6y ago
    I'm not claiming the reality of P2P always matches the ideas behind it. And surely you're not saying centralized hosting being a strict requirement was what people had in mind for P2P?
    - FeepingCreature 6y ago
      I'm saying perpetual availability wasn't what what people had in mind for P2P.
argvargc 6y ago
Except for nearly all blockchain-based p2p networks. Eg: https://cryptograffiti.info https://cryptograffiti.info

There is no technology possible that removes said responsibility. This is how peer to peer systems work. Your criticism is something that no peer to peer system claims to solve.

9000 6y ago

Actually, I recommend you check out Freenet [0], a project that's 20 years old. In fact, the Wikipedia page explicitly states: > Information flow in Freenet is different from networks like eMule or BitTorrent; in Freenet: > 1. A user wishing to share a file or update a freesite "inserts" the file "to the network" > 2. After "insertion" is finished, the publishing node is free to shut down, because the file is stored in the network. It will remain available for other users whether or not the original publishing node is online. No single node is responsible for the content; instead, it is replicated to many different nodes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet

octopoc 6y ago
Aren’t collaborative systems like that susceptible to abuse? E.g., an attacker could upload 1TB of noise and then shut down, reducing the network size by much more than 1TB.
FeepingCreature 6y ago
Of course, in Freenet, if a file is not requested often it will quickly fall off the network due to user churn.

calibas 6y ago

He said that IPFS hosting is the "primary responsibility of a single party". The whole idea behind peer to peer is to avoid precisely that.

FeepingCreature 6y ago
Not really, if you want something to be perpetually available in any p2p network you need to ensure that you're still hosting it. That goes for torrents, ed2k, freenet, and ipfs too.
- argvargc 6y ago
  This isn't true of most blockchain p2p networks, eg, Bitcoin. Anything uploaded to these lasts as long as the entire network does. The reason this works is it costs some amount to initially print the data to the network, limiting that kind of abuse.
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    And because there is money involved in making it last as long as the entire network. Once the monetary reasons drop then so does the data.
    - argvargc 6y ago
      It's possible for sure, but with Bitcoin and the overall crypto space steadily growing in value into the trillions over the course of over a decade, it seems unlikely.
- calibas 6y ago
  I'm not claiming the reality of P2P always matches the ideas behind it. And surely you're not saying centralized hosting being a strict requirement was what people had in mind for P2P?
  - FeepingCreature 6y ago
    I'm saying perpetual availability wasn't what what people had in mind for P2P.

argvargc 6y ago

Except for nearly all blockchain-based p2p networks. Eg: https://cryptograffiti.info https://cryptograffiti.info