3 ms·
Author here - thank you for pointing that out! The context in the comment you linked to is also helpful. In your opinion, would it be correct to remove "unique
by mlerner 4y ago
Author here - thank you for pointing that out! The context in the comment you linked to is also helpful.
In your opinion, would it be correct to remove "uniquely" from the first sentence? Maybe that would help clarify the issue you pointed out. As far as I understand, the CIDs are still unique when referring to _metadata_, and can be used to "unambiguously fetch content from its peers".
- jmillikin 4y agoIMO the closest equivalent to an IPFS CID is a BitTorrent magnet URL. They both can be used to obtain an intermediate metadata value, which can in turn be used to fetch file content. > CIDs are still unique when referring to _metadata_, and can be used to > "unambiguously fetch content from its peers". A CID, mathematically, cannot uniquely identify a single file. Consider the CID bafybcfbaqydfnrof5stdvkzhwx6kglb7p6owxja: [desktop]$ ipfs get bafybcfbaqydfnrof5stdvkzhwx6kglb7p6owxja -o temp.pdf [desktop]$ shasum -a 256 temp.pdf 2bb787a73e37352f92383abe7e2902936d1059ad9f1ba6daaa9c1e58ee6970d0 temp.pdf [laptop]$ ipfs get bafybcfbaqydfnrof5stdvkzhwx6kglb7p6owxja -o temp.pdf [laptop]$ shasum -a 256 temp.pdf d4488775d29bdef7993367d541064dbdda50d383f89f0aa13a6ff2e0894ba5ff temp.pdf If you were to try fetching that CID from the peer network, which file you'd get would depend on which peer you're fetching it from.