5 ms·

> the more readers it has, the faster it is to use it since some readers help to spread the content (Scalable). In other words: Once a few big websites are est

> the more readers it has, the faster it is to use it since some readers help to spread the content (Scalable). In other words: Once a few big websites are established, no small website will ever be able to gain traction again because the big websites are simply easier to reach and thus more attractive to use. And just like an unpopular old torrent, eventually you run out of seeders and your site is lost forever. One can argue about the value of low traffic websites, but I got to wonder: Who in their right mind thinks "Yeah, I want to make a website and then have others decide if it's allowed to live". Then again, maybe that kind of "survival of the fittest" is appealing to some folks. As far as I am concerned, it sounds like a stupid idea. (Which the author goes into more detail, so that's a good write up)

lelandbatey 3y ago
It's not up to others alone; you get a say too because you can seed your own content and that can be fast. In the worst case of no interest, then it's approximately the same as you hosting your own website in the world of today. This doesn't exonerate the shortfall of the "old torrent" pattern though, as you say.
fodkodrasz 3y ago
This is a false dilemma. Why would you not "seed" (pin) your own site, and be at others' mercy? You pin it, and when others also do so, the readers get faster and more redundant service.
- kimixa 3y ago
  For "unpopular" sites having a single origin somewhat removes the advantages of IPFS, it's not decentralized, not censorship resilient, and still costs the publisher for ongoing infrastructure to host it. Yet still had the disadvantages and complexity of IPFS vs a static http server. So if you're not going to be publishing something that will always have multiple copies floating around, why use IPFS?
  - fodkodrasz 3y ago
    1. to give a chance to avoid being slashdotted. 2. to allow anybody who finds it valuable to archive it, or parts of it? The complexity of IPFS is another thing, which should be solved. However popular or unpopular your site might be, you must host is somewhere somehow, if you wish to be sure it sticks around. It is simple as that.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - cle 3y ago
    It helps to use more specific terms than "decentralized" and "censorship resilient", there are a lot of attack vectors for both. IPFS certainly does address some of the attack vectors, but not all. For example if the "centralized" thing you're worried about is DNS and certificate authorities, then you can avoid those authorities entirely with IPFS. Replication is one aspect of centralization, and IPFS doesn't completely fail at it, it's just more expensive (you can guarantee two node replication, you will have to run two nodes though). And there are other aspects not addressed by IPFS at all like its reliance on IP address routing infrastructure.
- p4bl0 3y ago
  If you need to pin your content anyway, it's actually faster and less expensive to host a normal website then. And if you want to get it to readers faster, there are a lot a cheap or free CDN available, but that's generally not even an issue with the kind of website we're talking about here when they're served normally, over the web.
  - fodkodrasz 3y ago
    Yes, that is the state of affairs now. I can use cloudfront for my site, but cannot use it to pin my ipfs site (should I have one) as far as I know. You are fighting a strawman. If you don't take of your site, but expect others to take care of it (pin it), then it is not your site. You must ensure it has at least one pinned version. Others might o might not pin it, it depends on the popularity, or the accessibility of the stack, which is lacking right now according to the article.
- kevincox 3y ago
  It is also worth noting that most IPFS peers will cache content for some period of time even if not explicitly pinned. So if you site hits the top of Hacker News (and everyone was using a native IPFS browser) you would suddenly have thousands of peers with the content available. So in theory your one node can serve infinite users since once you serve one copy to the first user that user can replicate it to others. (The real world is of course more complicated but the idea works decently well in practice.)

lelandbatey 3y ago

It's not up to others alone; you get a say too because you can seed your own content and that can be fast. In the worst case of no interest, then it's approximately the same as you hosting your own website in the world of today. This doesn't exonerate the shortfall of the "old torrent" pattern though, as you say.

fodkodrasz 3y ago

This is a false dilemma. Why would you not "seed" (pin) your own site, and be at others' mercy? You pin it, and when others also do so, the readers get faster and more redundant service.

kimixa 3y ago
For "unpopular" sites having a single origin somewhat removes the advantages of IPFS, it's not decentralized, not censorship resilient, and still costs the publisher for ongoing infrastructure to host it. Yet still had the disadvantages and complexity of IPFS vs a static http server. So if you're not going to be publishing something that will always have multiple copies floating around, why use IPFS?
- fodkodrasz 3y ago
  1. to give a chance to avoid being slashdotted. 2. to allow anybody who finds it valuable to archive it, or parts of it? The complexity of IPFS is another thing, which should be solved. However popular or unpopular your site might be, you must host is somewhere somehow, if you wish to be sure it sticks around. It is simple as that.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- cle 3y ago
  It helps to use more specific terms than "decentralized" and "censorship resilient", there are a lot of attack vectors for both. IPFS certainly does address some of the attack vectors, but not all. For example if the "centralized" thing you're worried about is DNS and certificate authorities, then you can avoid those authorities entirely with IPFS. Replication is one aspect of centralization, and IPFS doesn't completely fail at it, it's just more expensive (you can guarantee two node replication, you will have to run two nodes though). And there are other aspects not addressed by IPFS at all like its reliance on IP address routing infrastructure.
p4bl0 3y ago
If you need to pin your content anyway, it's actually faster and less expensive to host a normal website then. And if you want to get it to readers faster, there are a lot a cheap or free CDN available, but that's generally not even an issue with the kind of website we're talking about here when they're served normally, over the web.
- fodkodrasz 3y ago
  Yes, that is the state of affairs now. I can use cloudfront for my site, but cannot use it to pin my ipfs site (should I have one) as far as I know. You are fighting a strawman. If you don't take of your site, but expect others to take care of it (pin it), then it is not your site. You must ensure it has at least one pinned version. Others might o might not pin it, it depends on the popularity, or the accessibility of the stack, which is lacking right now according to the article.
kevincox 3y ago
It is also worth noting that most IPFS peers will cache content for some period of time even if not explicitly pinned. So if you site hits the top of Hacker News (and everyone was using a native IPFS browser) you would suddenly have thousands of peers with the content available. So in theory your one node can serve infinite users since once you serve one copy to the first user that user can replicate it to others. (The real world is of course more complicated but the idea works decently well in practice.)