4 ms·

> The “Public IPFS DHT” is henceforth going to be called “Amino”. This follows along with the trend from 2022 in the IPFS ecosystem to use more precise language

> The “Public IPFS DHT” is henceforth going to be called “Amino”. This follows along with the trend from 2022 in the IPFS ecosystem to use more precise language to create space for alternative options I'd argue that "Public IPFS DHT", if less catchy, is far more precise than "Amino".

bembo 3y ago
I think the point is that amino is just one public ipfs dht, so they renamed it, so that other public ipfs dhts can exist without confusion.
Retr0id 3y ago
It's less precise because there are many ways one could implement a "Public IPFS DHT". "Public IPFS DHT" is a concept, Amino is a concrete instantiation of that concept.
diggan 3y ago
As the quoted part mentions, if they'd call it "The Public IPFS DHT", there isn't really any room for someone else to create something that could replace it, because There Could Be Only One. With a specific name for the specific implementation of a general concept, others could provide alternative implementations implementing the same concept.
- cjrp 3y ago
  Call it "The Public IPFS DHT v1.0" then ;)
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Because that wouldn't be confusing if a novel implementation named itself "The Public IPFS DHT v2.0"? Specificity >> descriptiveness, when you're aiming for a distributed future with multiple parties As much as I hate AWS' jungle of names, I get why they did it. And it's probably better than any alternative
- somat 3y ago
  I am probably missing something then, but as far as I can tell most of the value proposition of ipfs is the single universal dht. if you remove or fragment it now all you have is basically a worse bittorrent. Most of the interesting things I want to do with ipfs involve the dht, any sort of file transfer is usually a secondary concern.
  - diggan 3y ago
    > I am probably missing something then Yes :) There can be multiple implementations using the same specification and still be compatible. For example, the new "facelift" they talk about in the submission article would be a new implementation, but still compatible with the old one, as they would (publicly) mostly have the same interface, so they can still talk. There are many IPFS and libp2p implementations already, and they mostly aim first to be compatible with each other, so even if they work differently inside, they can communicate. Similarly as with BitTorrent where many clients implement the same specification and can therefore exchange data still, just like TCP or basically any protocol.
omginternets 3y ago
Agreed. One frustrating thing about PL is that they seem to make odd decisions that detract or distract from their main value proposition. In particular: - Filecoin is not interesting. IPFS and lip2p are interesting. - Renaming IPFS-the-application to Kubo is confusing - Naming the IPFS DHT "Amino" is confusing. Why does it even need its own name? I really wish PL would go through the occasional contraction phase where it prunes the bulk of its initiatives and re-focuses on what it does amazingly well. IPFS and libp2p are truly amazing.
- mburns 3y ago
  > Why does it even need its own name? So that other DHT implementations can exist and potentially replace the existing one. Same for go-ipfs being renamed. We generally don’t have web browsers named after the protocol they use. And with multiple ipfs clients, one of them being named “ipfs” is itself confusing. Frankly, both should have probably happened years ago.
  - omginternets 3y ago
    >So that other DHT implementations can exist and potentially replace the existing one. What's wrong with e.g. "The IPFS DHT was using Kademlia and is now using Coral"? The result is that there are now more names for the same thing, and the old names have changed. This is more confusing, not less. Ditto for "IPFS" and "Foo's IPFS implementation".
    - mburns 3y ago
      > What's wrong with e.g. "The IPFS DHT was using Kademlia and is now using Coral"? Because that’s not what is happening. The Kademlia-like DHT is not going away. It just has a name (“Amino”) so you can refer to its as an implementation relative to other implementations that will coexist, not necessarily replace, the original. > The result is that there are now more names for the same thing, and the old names have changed. They gave a name to a thing that didn’t have a formal name, because it can compete with other implementations. Having distinct names for a service and an implementation isn’t uncommon. The only criticism is that they didn’t do it sooner. All of this seems pretty academic. The majority of developers and vast majority of users won’t know or care about the branding or abstractions allowing for different implementations. The tools work the way they did, hopefully faster. That’s it.

bembo 3y ago

I think the point is that amino is just one public ipfs dht, so they renamed it, so that other public ipfs dhts can exist without confusion.

Retr0id 3y ago

It's less precise because there are many ways one could implement a "Public IPFS DHT". "Public IPFS DHT" is a concept, Amino is a concrete instantiation of that concept.

diggan 3y ago

As the quoted part mentions, if they'd call it "The Public IPFS DHT", there isn't really any room for someone else to create something that could replace it, because There Could Be Only One. With a specific name for the specific implementation of a general concept, others could provide alternative implementations implementing the same concept.

cjrp 3y ago
Call it "The Public IPFS DHT v1.0" then ;)
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Because that wouldn't be confusing if a novel implementation named itself "The Public IPFS DHT v2.0"? Specificity >> descriptiveness, when you're aiming for a distributed future with multiple parties As much as I hate AWS' jungle of names, I get why they did it. And it's probably better than any alternative
somat 3y ago
I am probably missing something then, but as far as I can tell most of the value proposition of ipfs is the single universal dht. if you remove or fragment it now all you have is basically a worse bittorrent. Most of the interesting things I want to do with ipfs involve the dht, any sort of file transfer is usually a secondary concern.
- diggan 3y ago
  > I am probably missing something then Yes :) There can be multiple implementations using the same specification and still be compatible. For example, the new "facelift" they talk about in the submission article would be a new implementation, but still compatible with the old one, as they would (publicly) mostly have the same interface, so they can still talk. There are many IPFS and libp2p implementations already, and they mostly aim first to be compatible with each other, so even if they work differently inside, they can communicate. Similarly as with BitTorrent where many clients implement the same specification and can therefore exchange data still, just like TCP or basically any protocol.

omginternets 3y ago

Agreed. One frustrating thing about PL is that they seem to make odd decisions that detract or distract from their main value proposition. In particular: - Filecoin is not interesting. IPFS and lip2p are interesting. - Renaming IPFS-the-application to Kubo is confusing - Naming the IPFS DHT "Amino" is confusing. Why does it even need its own name? I really wish PL would go through the occasional contraction phase where it prunes the bulk of its initiatives and re-focuses on what it does amazingly well. IPFS and libp2p are truly amazing.

mburns 3y ago
> Why does it even need its own name? So that other DHT implementations can exist and potentially replace the existing one. Same for go-ipfs being renamed. We generally don’t have web browsers named after the protocol they use. And with multiple ipfs clients, one of them being named “ipfs” is itself confusing. Frankly, both should have probably happened years ago.
- omginternets 3y ago
  >So that other DHT implementations can exist and potentially replace the existing one. What's wrong with e.g. "The IPFS DHT was using Kademlia and is now using Coral"? The result is that there are now more names for the same thing, and the old names have changed. This is more confusing, not less. Ditto for "IPFS" and "Foo's IPFS implementation".
  - mburns 3y ago
    > What's wrong with e.g. "The IPFS DHT was using Kademlia and is now using Coral"? Because that’s not what is happening. The Kademlia-like DHT is not going away. It just has a name (“Amino”) so you can refer to its as an implementation relative to other implementations that will coexist, not necessarily replace, the original. > The result is that there are now more names for the same thing, and the old names have changed. They gave a name to a thing that didn’t have a formal name, because it can compete with other implementations. Having distinct names for a service and an implementation isn’t uncommon. The only criticism is that they didn’t do it sooner. All of this seems pretty academic. The majority of developers and vast majority of users won’t know or care about the branding or abstractions allowing for different implementations. The tools work the way they did, hopefully faster. That’s it.