3 ms·

It’s arguably less cumbersome than torrents, but yes, the “new” and “alternative” aspects of IPFS certainly seem like limiting factors. If I were trying to mak

It’s arguably less cumbersome than torrents, but yes, the “new” and “alternative” aspects of IPFS certainly seem like limiting factors. If I were trying to make IPFS remotely popular, I’d start by hosting the same kinds of things that made http, gnutella, and BitTorrent popular.

pierat 3y ago
Indeed. Earlier on, it was definitely a thing we pie-rats were watching. I mean seriously... A bittorrent-git repo where nobody could ever kill a hashed content? Fucking hell! And there's big problems. The biggest was that the privacy branch of 'IPFS over Tor/I2P" was dismissed outright from main branch. Handwaving aside, the biggest reason was it wouldnt make the creators money. Filecoin would. Other problems is that it's a memory and network hog. Like mucho hog. But right now, IPFS is one of the most invasive protocols I've seen. That fucking thing will splatter your: public IP, all your private IPs, VPN IP, and any others as part of the dHT for your machine and any content hashes' associated to your machine. Even for deanonymized networks, this things nutzo. Ananymize it better, easy support for Tor and I2P, and deemphasise the shitcoin, and it would definitely be a thing.
- omginternets 3y ago
  >demphasize the shitcoin There are no words to express how much we are in agreement. I would argue the problem it is trying to solve is largely nonexistent, at least to the extent that data storage hasn't been a limiting factor since the early 2000's. Even more frustrating is the fact that the PL folks occasionally admit this, though it seems to be done unwittingly. I recall a keynote speech from the CEO himself in which he states that high-capacity storage is so ubiquitous as to make Filecoin a viable economic sector for developing nations. The contradiction in that statement is hopefully obvious.
yieldcrv 3y ago
browsers should be able to natively resolve an IPFS uri and CID especially given the way they are used.

pierat 3y ago

Indeed. Earlier on, it was definitely a thing we pie-rats were watching. I mean seriously... A bittorrent-git repo where nobody could ever kill a hashed content? Fucking hell! And there's big problems. The biggest was that the privacy branch of 'IPFS over Tor/I2P" was dismissed outright from main branch. Handwaving aside, the biggest reason was it wouldnt make the creators money. Filecoin would. Other problems is that it's a memory and network hog. Like mucho hog. But right now, IPFS is one of the most invasive protocols I've seen. That fucking thing will splatter your: public IP, all your private IPs, VPN IP, and any others as part of the dHT for your machine and any content hashes' associated to your machine. Even for deanonymized networks, this things nutzo. Ananymize it better, easy support for Tor and I2P, and deemphasise the shitcoin, and it would definitely be a thing.

omginternets 3y ago
>demphasize the shitcoin There are no words to express how much we are in agreement. I would argue the problem it is trying to solve is largely nonexistent, at least to the extent that data storage hasn't been a limiting factor since the early 2000's. Even more frustrating is the fact that the PL folks occasionally admit this, though it seems to be done unwittingly. I recall a keynote speech from the CEO himself in which he states that high-capacity storage is so ubiquitous as to make Filecoin a viable economic sector for developing nations. The contradiction in that statement is hopefully obvious.

yieldcrv 3y ago

browsers should be able to natively resolve an IPFS uri and CID especially given the way they are used.