3 ms·
But if the live mirrors go away and the hash method or chunking method change (and they do) then the hash is permanently useless.. so having the thing the hash
by frazbin 5y ago
But if the live mirrors go away and the hash method or chunking method change (and they do) then the hash is permanently useless.. so having the thing the hash was generated from isn't enough to make the hash live again. But that's just IPFS... we really deserve a better content address system.
- capableweb 5y ago> But if the live mirrors go away and the hash method or chunking method change (and they do) then the hash is permanently useless No, it might be permanently useless but it could also become useful in the future. Not only could you ask around archives if they have that hash, some random peer might also appear with the content in the future. Although unlikely. Although infinitely better than location-addressing that will for sure break at one point. > so having the thing the hash was generated from isn't enough to make the hash live again Of course, if it was that easy it wouldn't be a hash :) > But that's just IPFS... we really deserve a better content address system I was not considering IPFS, just thinking about content-addressing in general.
- hobofan 5y agoOne thing that I think is quite cool in that realm is that if ZKP (Zero-Knowledge Proofs) advance a bit further you could easily proof that two hashes come from the same input without having to have access to the input. With that migrations of hash functions, and in practice providing alternative download locations from multiple content-addressable storage systems would be possible.
- wizzwizz4 5y agoI don't think this would be easy.