clueless404

8 ms·

31.
by clueless404 10y ago
> I think youtube would be interested in some load balancing if they could keep the income from commercials. Firstly, it's not up to Google. Secondly, how would that even work? > Wait, what, there wouldn't be a need for YouT
32.
by clueless404 10y ago
It works great only for a limited number of use cases. It's terrible for unpopular content, it is not immune to takedown notices nor is it very resilient in the face of a determined adversary.
33.
by clueless404 10y ago
> theoretical I don't think that word means what you think it means. Asking what problem a technology solves is a very practical question. Countering with "IPFS is a nice and fun technology", is the very opposite, i.e. a
34.
by clueless404 10y ago
Um, no. You have no guarantees that the content put up via IPFS is by the original copyright owner. Thus immediately after you receive the infringing content over IPFS and start seeding it, you are infringing on the copyright owners rights.
35.
by clueless404 10y ago
> Given a URL for an HTTP resource, how do you know it does not contain child porn before you retrieve it? You don't, but then again regular browsing does not automatically download the illegal content, start seeding it and announce
36.
by clueless404 10y ago
> Well apart from battery, ... and that's pretty much the deal killer for this on mobile, even ignoring everything else. > If I was an ISP, I´d like it if a Youtube movie ... except you are not allowed to download videos from You
37.
by clueless404 10y ago
Regardless of whether I think this is a bit of a far fetched use case or not, this really does nothing for Joe Blow and his content distribution needs. But let's roll with it anyway. How does IPFS solve this problem, and more specifica
38.
by clueless404 10y ago
> By simply not downloading and seeding it. ;) You seem to have glanced over the qualifier I used: accidentally. Given a hash for an IPFS resource, how do you know it does not contain child porn before you retrieve it? Once you have down
39.
by clueless404 10y ago
> Because mirroring content on IPFS is trivial and transparent to the consumer. Which is also why a regular consumer should never use IPFS and why prosumer should immediately disable caching and seeding upon install. > All it takes is
40.
by clueless404 10y ago
How so? IPFS so only as resilient as you are good at dodging DMCA notices.
41.
by clueless404 10y ago
Yes, but only for suitably popular content, as all the dead torrents will testify. This doesn't make IPFS very appealing to Joe Blow, content maker unextraordinaire.
42.
by clueless404 10y ago
You won't have any luck with that argument in court. If you doubt me, see all verdicts for infringement when bitorrenting.
43.
by clueless404 10y ago
> The site host doesn't have to participate in IPFS for this to work. Really? An IPFS user will scrape HTTP content, republish it over IPFS and update a directory of where non-IPFS content can be found over IPFS? I must have misse
44.
by clueless404 10y ago
Which makes it about as resilient as regular content hosting, which is not very. Does IPFS work with Tor?
45.
by clueless404 10y ago
Does IPFS come with some kind of content filter or firewall to protect its users? When child porn inevitably shows up, how do you protect yourself from accidentally downloading and then seeding it?
46.
by clueless404 10y ago
Just exactly how does IPFS solve content distribution? You still have to serve the content from a server, since you cannot depend on the kindness of strangers to persist your content.
47.
by clueless404 10y ago
In which way is IPFS immune to content takedowns? IPFS provides no anonymity, so it won't take long before DMCA notices to start arriving.
48.
by clueless404 10y ago
What problem does IPFS actually solve?