6 ms·

> decentralized Web I thought the web and internet was decentralized already? Interesting project, btw! Many thanks to the devs.

superkuh 5y ago
I agree. IPFS is more centralized in that 99% of the people that attempt to view data on the IPFS network go through the actual web proxies not IPFS. And when that happens they're easy to take down with legal or traffic attacks. Additionally, IPFS's devs have already stated on their community forums that content like sci-hub is not welcome there.
- sixtyfourbits 5y ago
  The gateways are indeed centralized (though there are several different public gateways). But anyone who installs IPFS on their computer can access the content directly. Also some browsers support IPFS natively, e.g. https://brave.com/ipfs-support/ https://brave.com/ipfs-support/ From what I understand, the notion of sci-hub/libgen "not being welcome" was only about discussion on the official forums. See https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/mirror-of-sci-hub-in-ipfs/1613 https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/mirror-of-sci-hub-in-ipfs/1613 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25209246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25209246. But IPFS is a protocol just like bittorrent or HTTP, and the software is open source; it doesn't and can't enforce copyright restrictions.
  - superkuh 5y ago
    >But IPFS is a protocol just like bittorrent or HTTP, Yes, but it's a protocol with a centralized single group doing development who can change whatever they want without the users' consent. Take a look at what is happening to the Tor ecosystem on Oct 15th this year: all tor v2 routing support is being dropped from the main client and infrastructure (for security reasons). Entire communities built on onionland and other tor v2 features, as well as all URLs/links, search engine databases, etc, will just go poof when the devs drop support. Unfortunately being a protocol isn't enough. It has to be a community protocol, not a proprietary one where everyone follows one group's code. HTTP and bittorrent are safe from these kinds of attacks. IPFS isn't (yet) and that's why their butt-covering anti-sci-hub/libgen stance is worrying.
    - gzer0 5y ago
      That's being quite unfair to the developers. The entire process has been public and announced well in advance. You are welcome to download the Tor source code and add v2 functionality back in, and you’ll be able to visit sites hosted by people who have done the same. No one is stopping you. To very quickly summarize why we are deprecating, in one word: Safety. Onion service v2 uses RSA1024 and 80 bit SHA1 (truncated) addresses [1]. It also still uses the TAP [2] handshake which has been entirely removed from Tor for many years now _except_ v2 services. Its simplistic directory system exposes it to a variety of enumeration and location-prediction attacks that give HSDir relays too much power to enumerate or even block v2 services. Finally, v2 services are not being developed nor maintained anymore. Only the most severe security issues are being addressed. That being said, the deprecation timeline is now quite simple because v3 has reached a good maturity level: * v3 has been the default since Tor 0.3.5.1-alpha. * v3 is feature parity with v2. * v3 now has Onion Balance support [3] * Entire network supports v3 since the End-of-Life of 0.2.9.x series earlier this year.
      - a1369209993 5y ago
        > [1] [2] [3] Citation (literally) needed.
    - dudehere 5y ago
      If somebody wants to make his project in own way, why should it be decentralized? How to control ways and quality? Everything has its limits. Perfect decentralization of development lead to a libgen collapse which not many know about thinking that it's bigger servers are still a real libgen. They are not and are mimicking libgen after capturing its vital parts. This happened exactly due to idealistic views that development can be entrusted to different anonymous individuals without regard to centralized management. Decentralization implies loss of control. While it's good for results, it's very destructive for development and team building.
- TacticalCoder 5y ago
  > Additionally, IPFS's devs have already stated on their community forums that content like sci-hub is not welcome there. I'm not familiar with IPFS: is content on IPFS actually moderated somehow?
  - IceWreck 5y ago
    No, the discussion of "sci-hub on IPFS" is not allowed in their forums. Theres nothing stopping you frm actually doing that, just talk about it somewhere other than their official forums.
  - dudehere 5y ago
    Public IPFS gateways are typically DMCA-compliant, but nobody stops one to rent for $10/month or raise an own dedicated IPFS gateway.
- jancsika 5y ago
  > Additionally, IPFS's devs have already stated on their community forums that content like sci-hub is not welcome there. Do you have a link?
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  I think people don’t notice that IPFS is not built for privacy- you are broadcasting that you have possession of a particular hash, not a smart place to be a pirate.
  - mnd999 5y ago
    Isn’t this a whole load of pirate ebooks though?
    - dudehere 5y ago
      Educational and heritage books. Piracy is when you don't learn but profit. You may learn, though. Have a look what the fair use doctrine tells us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Doesn't torrent have the same issue?
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    I mean, maybe? It's trivial to add noise to a file to produce a different hash. It's a neutral routing protocol that doesn't make prescriptions one way or the other.
  - dudehere 5y ago
    You are welcome to always use VPN. No problem to have a plain decentralized network without privacy features.
dudehere 5y ago
You have both options, either to use a convenient Web gateway without decentralization, or to use full P2P access. It's up to you, the code and offered domain names give you all the freedom.

superkuh 5y ago

I agree. IPFS is more centralized in that 99% of the people that attempt to view data on the IPFS network go through the actual web proxies not IPFS. And when that happens they're easy to take down with legal or traffic attacks. Additionally, IPFS's devs have already stated on their community forums that content like sci-hub is not welcome there.

sixtyfourbits 5y ago
The gateways are indeed centralized (though there are several different public gateways). But anyone who installs IPFS on their computer can access the content directly. Also some browsers support IPFS natively, e.g. https://brave.com/ipfs-support/ https://brave.com/ipfs-support/ From what I understand, the notion of sci-hub/libgen "not being welcome" was only about discussion on the official forums. See https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/mirror-of-sci-hub-in-ipfs/1613 https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/mirror-of-sci-hub-in-ipfs/1613 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25209246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25209246. But IPFS is a protocol just like bittorrent or HTTP, and the software is open source; it doesn't and can't enforce copyright restrictions.
- superkuh 5y ago
  >But IPFS is a protocol just like bittorrent or HTTP, Yes, but it's a protocol with a centralized single group doing development who can change whatever they want without the users' consent. Take a look at what is happening to the Tor ecosystem on Oct 15th this year: all tor v2 routing support is being dropped from the main client and infrastructure (for security reasons). Entire communities built on onionland and other tor v2 features, as well as all URLs/links, search engine databases, etc, will just go poof when the devs drop support. Unfortunately being a protocol isn't enough. It has to be a community protocol, not a proprietary one where everyone follows one group's code. HTTP and bittorrent are safe from these kinds of attacks. IPFS isn't (yet) and that's why their butt-covering anti-sci-hub/libgen stance is worrying.
  - gzer0 5y ago
    That's being quite unfair to the developers. The entire process has been public and announced well in advance. You are welcome to download the Tor source code and add v2 functionality back in, and you’ll be able to visit sites hosted by people who have done the same. No one is stopping you. To very quickly summarize why we are deprecating, in one word: Safety. Onion service v2 uses RSA1024 and 80 bit SHA1 (truncated) addresses [1]. It also still uses the TAP [2] handshake which has been entirely removed from Tor for many years now _except_ v2 services. Its simplistic directory system exposes it to a variety of enumeration and location-prediction attacks that give HSDir relays too much power to enumerate or even block v2 services. Finally, v2 services are not being developed nor maintained anymore. Only the most severe security issues are being addressed. That being said, the deprecation timeline is now quite simple because v3 has reached a good maturity level: * v3 has been the default since Tor 0.3.5.1-alpha. * v3 is feature parity with v2. * v3 now has Onion Balance support [3] * Entire network supports v3 since the End-of-Life of 0.2.9.x series earlier this year.
    - a1369209993 5y ago
      > [1] [2] [3] Citation (literally) needed.
  - dudehere 5y ago
    If somebody wants to make his project in own way, why should it be decentralized? How to control ways and quality? Everything has its limits. Perfect decentralization of development lead to a libgen collapse which not many know about thinking that it's bigger servers are still a real libgen. They are not and are mimicking libgen after capturing its vital parts. This happened exactly due to idealistic views that development can be entrusted to different anonymous individuals without regard to centralized management. Decentralization implies loss of control. While it's good for results, it's very destructive for development and team building.
TacticalCoder 5y ago
> Additionally, IPFS's devs have already stated on their community forums that content like sci-hub is not welcome there. I'm not familiar with IPFS: is content on IPFS actually moderated somehow?
- IceWreck 5y ago
  No, the discussion of "sci-hub on IPFS" is not allowed in their forums. Theres nothing stopping you frm actually doing that, just talk about it somewhere other than their official forums.
- dudehere 5y ago
  Public IPFS gateways are typically DMCA-compliant, but nobody stops one to rent for $10/month or raise an own dedicated IPFS gateway.
jancsika 5y ago
> Additionally, IPFS's devs have already stated on their community forums that content like sci-hub is not welcome there. Do you have a link?
jazzyjackson 5y ago
I think people don’t notice that IPFS is not built for privacy- you are broadcasting that you have possession of a particular hash, not a smart place to be a pirate.
- mnd999 5y ago
  Isn’t this a whole load of pirate ebooks though?
  - dudehere 5y ago
    Educational and heritage books. Piracy is when you don't learn but profit. You may learn, though. Have a look what the fair use doctrine tells us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Doesn't torrent have the same issue?
- chrisco255 5y ago
  I mean, maybe? It's trivial to add noise to a file to produce a different hash. It's a neutral routing protocol that doesn't make prescriptions one way or the other.
- dudehere 5y ago
  You are welcome to always use VPN. No problem to have a plain decentralized network without privacy features.

dudehere 5y ago

You have both options, either to use a convenient Web gateway without decentralization, or to use full P2P access. It's up to you, the code and offered domain names give you all the freedom.