2 ms·
> Which will then contain a link to the file Why? You already have a copy on your local machine ("local machine" being anywhere you'd want to play that file).
by yellowapple 4y ago
> Which will then contain a link to the file
Why? You already have a copy on your local machine ("local machine" being anywhere you'd want to play that file). What's more important is the hash; if you really care about remote storage, IPFS kills both those birds with one stone.
> Still, you'll now pay >50$ for each file, 98% of which are transaction fees
There are other NFT-capable blockchains besides Ethereum, you know :)
- AlexandrB 4y agoAs someone who loves organizing my music, a file hash would be a shitty solution. I want to be able to edit tags and transcode the song (e.g. for iTunes compatibility) without losing ownership.
- yellowapple 4y agoAs long as you retain the original (which you probably should anyway, especially if you're converting to a lossy format or downloaded it that way in the first place) and can redo the conversion on demand, I don't expect that to be much of an issue. A Shazam-esque audio fingerprinting approach could work here, too (though obviously IPFS won't give you that for free like it would a file hash). Might be troublesome for remixes, though.