4 ms·

I see this very similar to IPv4 and IPv6, and adoption. Non content addressable URL addressing simply is "good enough" for most use cases, and bittorrent is "go

I see this very similar to IPv4 and IPv6, and adoption. Non content addressable URL addressing simply is "good enough" for most use cases, and bittorrent is "good enough" for serving content durably and somewhat in a content addressable manner (file hashes, magnet torrents, immutable torrents). Do we need IPFS URLs? It doesn't appear so, it seems like a solution seeking a problem. IPFS gateways will always be a target for abuse and copyright claims as well. If you want to reference resources securely, https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Defenses/Subresource_Integrity https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Defens... is available and widely supported.

rhodey 2mo ago
I think something like IPFS is definitely needed. There is nothing stopping you from distributing a webapp on bittorrent but you'll also need to add a README for instructions on how to run the webapp on localhost so a browser can render it. So thats not something that any non-technical user wants to do.
- toomuchtodo 2mo ago
  Can you share potential webapp use cases that would rely on IPFS or using IPFS for referencing resources would be an improvement? Perhaps my mental has gaps on this topic, and my thoughts and assertions could be incorrect.
  - rhodey 2mo ago
    The arguments for "reproducible builds" are strong and so think reproducible builds but for something that can be loaded in the browser. Browser is a big deal because its a sandbox also. For example Signal could be a webapp if we had content addressable hashing and it would be sandboxed.
- stackghost 2mo ago
  Content-addressable storage as a whole is a non-starter with non-technical users.
  - chriswarbo 2mo ago
    I don't understand. Billions of non-technical users are loading URLs like `https://cdn.foo/?guid=deadbeefdeadbeefdeadbeef https://cdn.foo/?guid=deadbeefdeadbeefdeadbeef` all the time. Why would they care if those URLs became `ipfs://deadbeefdeadbeefdeadbeef` instead?
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - stackghost 2mo ago
      The number of normies visiting urls directly from a CDN is a rounding error. Non technical users like pronounceable domain names. It's why we aren't just using IP addresses. CAS is intimidating to non-technical types.
      - chriswarbo 2mo ago
        Pronounceable names can point to a content address, the same way they can point to an IP address. For example, https://dnslink.dev https://dnslink.dev points a DNS name to a content address; git refs point to git objects; etc.
        stackghost 2mo ago
        This is irrelevant. The point I'm responding to is this: >I think something like IPFS is definitely needed. There is nothing stopping you from distributing a webapp on bittorrent but you'll also need to add a README for instructions on how to run the webapp on localhost so a browser can render it. So thats not something that any non-technical user wants to do. This quoted comment assumes there's a web app that is sufficiently complex as to require a readme to run it, but that's too complex for normal people. But somehow, a link that looks like `ipfs://12340-9q5ui1j2;lk3rjq;ladksfj` won't scare those same people off? Color me extremely skeptical.
        chriswarbo 2mo ago
- fc417fc802 2mo ago
  Arguably that's a browser shortcoming that applies equally to IPFS (as well as all the other "alternative" internet protocols). (But yes I realize IPFS is a much better fit for the purpose when you dig into the details.)
rhodey 2mo ago
Oh and sorry I missed your comment on "Subresource Integrity". The deal here is Subresource Integrity will only help you if the index.html is considered trusted/authoritative. So you still need a way to get index.html to users and users need a way to say "is this the true index.html"
somat 2mo ago
My go to example: IPFS is Plan9 to bittorrent's UNIX. Some achingly beautiful design, willingness to completely disregard existing messy conventions(for example: The ipfs unified url format) and, like you said, still not enough better for people to want to change.

rhodey 2mo ago

I think something like IPFS is definitely needed. There is nothing stopping you from distributing a webapp on bittorrent but you'll also need to add a README for instructions on how to run the webapp on localhost so a browser can render it. So thats not something that any non-technical user wants to do.

toomuchtodo 2mo ago
Can you share potential webapp use cases that would rely on IPFS or using IPFS for referencing resources would be an improvement? Perhaps my mental has gaps on this topic, and my thoughts and assertions could be incorrect.
- rhodey 2mo ago
  The arguments for "reproducible builds" are strong and so think reproducible builds but for something that can be loaded in the browser. Browser is a big deal because its a sandbox also. For example Signal could be a webapp if we had content addressable hashing and it would be sandboxed.
stackghost 2mo ago
Content-addressable storage as a whole is a non-starter with non-technical users.
- chriswarbo 2mo ago
  I don't understand. Billions of non-technical users are loading URLs like `https://cdn.foo/?guid=deadbeefdeadbeefdeadbeef https://cdn.foo/?guid=deadbeefdeadbeefdeadbeef` all the time. Why would they care if those URLs became `ipfs://deadbeefdeadbeefdeadbeef` instead?
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - stackghost 2mo ago
    The number of normies visiting urls directly from a CDN is a rounding error. Non technical users like pronounceable domain names. It's why we aren't just using IP addresses. CAS is intimidating to non-technical types.
    - chriswarbo 2mo ago
      Pronounceable names can point to a content address, the same way they can point to an IP address. For example, https://dnslink.dev https://dnslink.dev points a DNS name to a content address; git refs point to git objects; etc.
      - stackghost 2mo ago
        This is irrelevant. The point I'm responding to is this: >I think something like IPFS is definitely needed. There is nothing stopping you from distributing a webapp on bittorrent but you'll also need to add a README for instructions on how to run the webapp on localhost so a browser can render it. So thats not something that any non-technical user wants to do. This quoted comment assumes there's a web app that is sufficiently complex as to require a readme to run it, but that's too complex for normal people. But somehow, a link that looks like `ipfs://12340-9q5ui1j2;lk3rjq;ladksfj` won't scare those same people off? Color me extremely skeptical.
        chriswarbo 2mo ago
fc417fc802 2mo ago
Arguably that's a browser shortcoming that applies equally to IPFS (as well as all the other "alternative" internet protocols). (But yes I realize IPFS is a much better fit for the purpose when you dig into the details.)

rhodey 2mo ago

Oh and sorry I missed your comment on "Subresource Integrity". The deal here is Subresource Integrity will only help you if the index.html is considered trusted/authoritative. So you still need a way to get index.html to users and users need a way to say "is this the true index.html"

somat 2mo ago

My go to example: IPFS is Plan9 to bittorrent's UNIX. Some achingly beautiful design, willingness to completely disregard existing messy conventions(for example: The ipfs unified url format) and, like you said, still not enough better for people to want to change.