3 ms·

> [...] you’re still going to need to pay for hosting, which could be done cheaper without the blockchain overhead. IPFS has no blockchain, and the overhead of

> [...] you’re still going to need to pay for hosting, which could be done cheaper without the blockchain overhead. IPFS has no blockchain, and the overhead of transferring files is incredibly low thanks to lib-p2p. > Similarly, an NFT doesn’t prevent everyone from accessing it so you can’t force people to pay for the cost of their access and it doesn’t protect your ownership — that’s done by copyright laws enforced by the government. By itself it does not, coupled with other mechanisms, it can. Access control to personal files is very much removed from where I expect government to exercise their own control.

acdha 5y ago
> IPFS has no blockchain, and the overhead of transferring files is incredibly low thanks to lib-p2p. Filecoin does, however, while you'll note was proposed as part of this. The problem with IPFS is the general one with P2P: there aren't enough people who are going to use their storage + network capacity to provide a CDN for strangers, especially with the personal legal risks to do so, and it's slower than a high-quality professionally-managed service like YouTube or Vimeo. That means that if you care about long-term availability, you need to pay for hosting and that likely will also require paying for bandwidth if the content becomes popular and/or you want to provide a competitive experience rather than simply pure archival. > > Similarly, an NFT doesn’t prevent everyone from accessing it so you can’t force people to pay for the cost of their access and it doesn’t protect your ownership — that’s done by copyright laws enforced by the government. > By itself it does not, coupled with other mechanisms, it can. Yes, but that's like saying that if you buy a chainsaw and a loaf of bread you can make sandwiches. Either way you need to build and operate a system to store the video and provide authenticated access so the NFT is simply making that more expensive and adding additional failure modes. > Access control to personal files is very much removed from where I expect government to exercise their own control. This is like saying you don't expect the government to control access to your house. That's technically true but only if you define the problem so narrowly to omit the fact that the government provides the legal framework and enforcement which allows you to do so reasonably. For example, if you're trying to get paid for content someone will likely try to snag a copy and present it somewhere else with their ads; blockchains can't prevent that and will limit revenue only to the extent that the viewers care to validate an NFT. What does work is that you can send something like a DMCA request and get a prompt response from a hosting service because they know that the penalties for not doing so are enforced by the government rather than just your personal clout.

acdha 5y ago

> IPFS has no blockchain, and the overhead of transferring files is incredibly low thanks to lib-p2p. Filecoin does, however, while you'll note was proposed as part of this. The problem with IPFS is the general one with P2P: there aren't enough people who are going to use their storage + network capacity to provide a CDN for strangers, especially with the personal legal risks to do so, and it's slower than a high-quality professionally-managed service like YouTube or Vimeo. That means that if you care about long-term availability, you need to pay for hosting and that likely will also require paying for bandwidth if the content becomes popular and/or you want to provide a competitive experience rather than simply pure archival. > > Similarly, an NFT doesn’t prevent everyone from accessing it so you can’t force people to pay for the cost of their access and it doesn’t protect your ownership — that’s done by copyright laws enforced by the government. > By itself it does not, coupled with other mechanisms, it can. Yes, but that's like saying that if you buy a chainsaw and a loaf of bread you can make sandwiches. Either way you need to build and operate a system to store the video and provide authenticated access so the NFT is simply making that more expensive and adding additional failure modes. > Access control to personal files is very much removed from where I expect government to exercise their own control. This is like saying you don't expect the government to control access to your house. That's technically true but only if you define the problem so narrowly to omit the fact that the government provides the legal framework and enforcement which allows you to do so reasonably. For example, if you're trying to get paid for content someone will likely try to snag a copy and present it somewhere else with their ads; blockchains can't prevent that and will limit revenue only to the extent that the viewers care to validate an NFT. What does work is that you can send something like a DMCA request and get a prompt response from a hosting service because they know that the penalties for not doing so are enforced by the government rather than just your personal clout.