carolc

3 ms·

1.
by carolc 9y ago
"Here's my complete line of reasoning: You can build mutable systems on top of immutable (append-only) systems. But is that a good idea? Yes, it is, for systems which don't have huge amounts of (non-static) data, and/or
2.
by carolc 9y ago
> "Distributed filesystems and CDN in general are great, but let's use them for things that do not actually need a single bit of security, please." The notion that distributed filesystems are inherently, or can't be,
3.
by carolc 9y ago
Agreed with lgierth and I believe this is what sets IPFS apart from many similar technologies: integration path for existing technologies. As far as I can tell, it has been an important design decision from early on for IPFS.
4.
by carolc 9y ago
Agreed that many CRMs etc. don't have a lot of data. And that's actually good, it makes the database size very manageable in the context of trustless, distributed networks. I'm not following the logic of the argument here tho
5.
by carolc 9y ago
See the comment below https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15376665 . It is not true that distributed systems are only good for static content or "append-only" data. "Mutable systems" can be built on to
6.
by carolc 9y ago
Databases, and dynamic content in general, can be done with/on IPFS. Take look at OrbitDB ( https://github.com/orbitdb/orbit-db ) - "Distributed peer-to-peer database for the decentralized web" or their bl
7.
by carolc 10y ago
Orbit used to use a Redis server for pubsub messaging but it's not anymore as IPFS has implemented a peer-to-peer pubsub. Totally serverless.
8.
by carolc 10y ago
(IPFS dev here) We've been working hard to get js-ipfs to a working level and just last week announced it's ready. While it's still early days and we have plenty to do to make it even more robust, we have it fully working wit