4 ms·
Yeah, doing crime on IPFS is a really bad idea. I talked with Juan Benet about this in maybe 2016 or so, and he said it's a feature, which is fair enough. Priv
by px43 4y ago
Yeah, doing crime on IPFS is a really bad idea. I talked with Juan Benet about this in maybe 2016 or so, and he said it's a feature, which is fair enough.
Privacy is very much not the goal of IPFS, and never has been. Not only is it obvious who is hosting any given file, but if you listen actively you can usually see who is downloading any given file as well.
- 7v3x3n3sem9vv 4y agosounds like a potential privacy disaster of Google Facebook and others can just listen in on erroneously assumed privacy. I suppose the only reason Google/Facebook aren't pushing for it is it allows anyone to collect this data vs just the big players.
- chriswarbo 4y ago> sounds like a potential privacy disaster of Google Facebook and others can just listen in on erroneously assumed privacy IPFS is an alternative to HTTP. Would you characterise Google's Web crawler as "listening in" and an "potential privacy disaster"? Are those paying for SEO "erroneously assum[ing] privacy"?
- noasaservice 4y agoHTTP doesn't announce ALL the internal networks you're on. It only announces its own public IP in which it responded to.