3 ms·
For "unpopular" sites having a single origin somewhat removes the advantages of IPFS, it's not decentralized, not censorship resilient, and still costs the publ
by 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 ago1. 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 agoIt 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.