4 ms·

Guessing #1 has something to do with speeding up the notoriously-slow network. Probably allows more long-term route caching or something. #2 does seem silly.

Guessing #1 has something to do with speeding up the notoriously-slow network. Probably allows more long-term route caching or something. #2 does seem silly. On a semi-related note, it's not that hard to set up a private IPFS. You just need a publicly-reachable "lighthouse" node (and it's extremely low-resource, the cheapest hosted VM you can find can likely handle the task without trouble) and some light config edits. IPFS isn't (and isn't trying to be) anonymous, but you can avoid sharing with the entire IPFS network and share only with trusted peers instead. The ordinary IPFS network won't even know you're there, because you won't be connecting to it.

pierat 3y ago
I was there doing early testing, way prior to the filecoin offering. The justification for a computer key (which is a base56 sha) was to make every machine a unique node on the network. Note that IPFS also purports to be a multi-network system that can be on top of ip4/6/tor/etc, so they wanted a backwards compat ID. Now if my computer asks the dHT for hash X, I get a response back from all the computers with that hash. And it's similar to BitTorrent in that fashion. And the content hash is like Git. There's also IPNS, which makes a connection from DNS to IPFS. You need unique machine identifiers for this. With the sharing of every network interface, prior to 0.3 the idea was that ALL content loaded with IPFS could be shared. And 'nearness' ala STP could be used to provide local data to local machines. However, due to garbage copyright law, was not turned on by default. The root problem is that basic security was never considered, as in the 'bad things someone can do with these identifiers'. Ideas like "one person loads a viral video and every device on the local network gets it from them" are amazing ideas, but preclude the bad side like 'who to DoS and doxx' and all these bad side of internet issues. It sucks, cause I really think IPFS should have absolutely taken off. I could see this as solar system worthy networking for satellite to satellite. But there's inherent problems that I think would be better in the crucible of the IETF and not a commercial entity.
- nextaccountic 3y ago
  > However, due to garbage copyright law, was not turned on by default. I don't understand, what is not turned on by default? Do you know which setting can be used to turn it on?
  - pierat 3y ago
    Right now, on the http(s) web, when you request a file, the provenance of that file is linked to the domain name and the HTTPS traffic. On IPFS, the provenance of a file is its content hash, not some server you downloaded it from. On IPFS, if I join in on hosting and sharing a hash of a file, I could be a malware spewer, but that doesn't change the hash. Where this conflicts with copyright is, say you are on a IPFS enabled Movie server from CBS. By definition, only they are approved to transmit their files. But IPFS uses Git and BitTorrent to swarm download content. And default copyright, that's a civil tort matter. The original idea for IPFS was that for the local network, that it did support BitTorrent like operations from browser cache. So if something went viral, it was 1 download from the internet connection, and then on-lical-network the rest of the way. That feature was disabled EARLY on because it strictly violates copyright. It's also why your computer published all the network interfaces to the dHT, so that you could find local nodes. But they didn't remove that; they only removed the dynamic sharing part. I think there are settings to turn that back on, but I'm not 100% sure.
    - anacrolix 3y ago
      IPFS did browser caching? Are you sure?
- DeathArrow 3y ago
  You seem to have invested a great time in knowing IPFS. Just three questions I have: -is performance an issue? -can the source code and architecture be easily be modified so it becomes more safe where anonimity is concerned? -if I run IPFS from a virtual machine and route the connections through socks proxy chains / ssh tunnels / VPNs / TOR it would still be able to spill info about me?
  - pierat 3y ago
    Performance: ugh yes. The GO implementation is a CPU and RAM hog. Basically, you cannot run it on a cheap vps, where you could easily run apache or nginx. There's also significant bandwidth costs from a distributed hash table. That's a design implementation that really can't be avoided as the nature of dHT's. Running this on phones will blow through your monthly quota pretty quickly just on announce traffic. I'm not well versed in GO, so I can't! However there's a LOT of customizations and settings you can turn off/on. For example, you can create a private IPFS network of just your machines. Or you can create piracy networks of friends. That sort of thing. Just my complaints about the defaults are what I would classify as unsafe. As for running through Tor or I2p, well yeah. I worked with another user who ended up figuring out a way to do it through Tor that only shared an internal 192.168.0.0/24 address. Basically they firewalled all internet comms other than Tor and forced through it. Also had to do MAC randomization because IPFS also shares that. The IPFS folks initially said they were going to first-class Tor support. But when it got hard, they backed out. My guess was that would have turned IPFS into the biggest unstoppable piracy net. And Benet and gang were busy with filecoin. Tor doesn't make money, and has the smell of unsavoriness. My recommendation is to get 2 machines, and bring them both up with a trivial 'hello.txt' file and prove all the details you can about the other. I don't think the protocol changed much... But I could be wrong. I left using it because of massive resource usage, high network bandwidth, and user-hostile hosting environment due to insecure and everything-shared environment.

pierat 3y ago

I was there doing early testing, way prior to the filecoin offering. The justification for a computer key (which is a base56 sha) was to make every machine a unique node on the network. Note that IPFS also purports to be a multi-network system that can be on top of ip4/6/tor/etc, so they wanted a backwards compat ID. Now if my computer asks the dHT for hash X, I get a response back from all the computers with that hash. And it's similar to BitTorrent in that fashion. And the content hash is like Git. There's also IPNS, which makes a connection from DNS to IPFS. You need unique machine identifiers for this. With the sharing of every network interface, prior to 0.3 the idea was that ALL content loaded with IPFS could be shared. And 'nearness' ala STP could be used to provide local data to local machines. However, due to garbage copyright law, was not turned on by default. The root problem is that basic security was never considered, as in the 'bad things someone can do with these identifiers'. Ideas like "one person loads a viral video and every device on the local network gets it from them" are amazing ideas, but preclude the bad side like 'who to DoS and doxx' and all these bad side of internet issues. It sucks, cause I really think IPFS should have absolutely taken off. I could see this as solar system worthy networking for satellite to satellite. But there's inherent problems that I think would be better in the crucible of the IETF and not a commercial entity.

nextaccountic 3y ago
> However, due to garbage copyright law, was not turned on by default. I don't understand, what is not turned on by default? Do you know which setting can be used to turn it on?
- pierat 3y ago
  Right now, on the http(s) web, when you request a file, the provenance of that file is linked to the domain name and the HTTPS traffic. On IPFS, the provenance of a file is its content hash, not some server you downloaded it from. On IPFS, if I join in on hosting and sharing a hash of a file, I could be a malware spewer, but that doesn't change the hash. Where this conflicts with copyright is, say you are on a IPFS enabled Movie server from CBS. By definition, only they are approved to transmit their files. But IPFS uses Git and BitTorrent to swarm download content. And default copyright, that's a civil tort matter. The original idea for IPFS was that for the local network, that it did support BitTorrent like operations from browser cache. So if something went viral, it was 1 download from the internet connection, and then on-lical-network the rest of the way. That feature was disabled EARLY on because it strictly violates copyright. It's also why your computer published all the network interfaces to the dHT, so that you could find local nodes. But they didn't remove that; they only removed the dynamic sharing part. I think there are settings to turn that back on, but I'm not 100% sure.
  - anacrolix 3y ago
    IPFS did browser caching? Are you sure?
DeathArrow 3y ago
You seem to have invested a great time in knowing IPFS. Just three questions I have: -is performance an issue? -can the source code and architecture be easily be modified so it becomes more safe where anonimity is concerned? -if I run IPFS from a virtual machine and route the connections through socks proxy chains / ssh tunnels / VPNs / TOR it would still be able to spill info about me?
- pierat 3y ago
  Performance: ugh yes. The GO implementation is a CPU and RAM hog. Basically, you cannot run it on a cheap vps, where you could easily run apache or nginx. There's also significant bandwidth costs from a distributed hash table. That's a design implementation that really can't be avoided as the nature of dHT's. Running this on phones will blow through your monthly quota pretty quickly just on announce traffic. I'm not well versed in GO, so I can't! However there's a LOT of customizations and settings you can turn off/on. For example, you can create a private IPFS network of just your machines. Or you can create piracy networks of friends. That sort of thing. Just my complaints about the defaults are what I would classify as unsafe. As for running through Tor or I2p, well yeah. I worked with another user who ended up figuring out a way to do it through Tor that only shared an internal 192.168.0.0/24 address. Basically they firewalled all internet comms other than Tor and forced through it. Also had to do MAC randomization because IPFS also shares that. The IPFS folks initially said they were going to first-class Tor support. But when it got hard, they backed out. My guess was that would have turned IPFS into the biggest unstoppable piracy net. And Benet and gang were busy with filecoin. Tor doesn't make money, and has the smell of unsavoriness. My recommendation is to get 2 machines, and bring them both up with a trivial 'hello.txt' file and prove all the details you can about the other. I don't think the protocol changed much... But I could be wrong. I left using it because of massive resource usage, high network bandwidth, and user-hostile hosting environment due to insecure and everything-shared environment.