11–20 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is distributed. The website should have a copy at /ipfs/QmRaS4AZriMzw9nekub7hojTnvQYsVTDqkYG7BggQsexNt (check TXT record). You just need to access it over the right protocol.
But I thought ipfs-js would make it run today within the browser...?
Hey I have a related question: so with IPFS we all host bits of the internet, and with IPv6 our machines are all directly world-accessible, right? So how do we prevent this from turning into a huge pwn-fest? If routers aren't doing NAT and a bit of firewalling along with that, would each machine be completely responsible for its own security?
Home routers are doing IPv6 firewalling by default, no need for NAT. NAT is strictly inferior to firewalling. (Of course you shouldn't put things on your internet-connected network that need the firewall, just look at it as a porous defense-in-depth element, just like with IPv4)
How do hosting providers fit in here, if at all? E.g., if I want to host a website on IPFS, do I publish it from my own machine and then wait a healthy amount of time for the content to be absorbed by the ether, or is there some way I can encourage other nodes to pick it up without requiring end-users to actively seek out my fresh material?
Of course, the economics are quite different. In the normal web, you need to add more resources when a page becomes more popular. In a distributed web, more resources are a side-effect of a page becoming more popular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But I thought ipfs-js would make it run today within the browser...?
To use js-ipfs, you still need to host the script somewhere. Doesn't help when the whole host doesn't respond.
If you want to tamper with content on the web, the idea that content is fingerprinted in IPFS is a huge deal. IPNS (the name service) then becomes the vulnerability, but that is also distributed.
It does protect against DDOS, since old content remains visible and online but if the private key is leaked or the node is malicious, it has exactly 0 protection.
Even worse, if the private key is stolen, you can't do much about it unless you have DNS setup... which brings you back to centralized.
I worry that this is another example of throwing technology at a social and political problem. That the current web is centralized has little to do with its technical design, and everything to do with economic and structural incentives that have made it that way. It's tempting to say "start afresh", but we'll just be trading our current problems for a new set of problems IPFS introduces. It's a law of nature that pro…
I worry that this is another example of throwing technology at a social and political problem. That the current web is centralized has little to do with its technical design, and everything to do with economic and structural incentives that have made it that way. It's tempting to say "start afresh", but we'll just be trading our current problems for a new set of problems IPFS introduces. It's a law of nature that pro…
But there are some things that mirroring and content addressing would be perfect for. Replacement for the current script and files CDN for example. Package/software repos, firmware downloads, news sites, etc. Anything accessed by lots of people and not updated every second.
And there's also the location context. If you live on the west coast US, maybe it doesn't matter. But if half of the web traffic could move to ipfs, Australia for example should get an amazing speed increase by unblocking the big pipes.
I worry that this is another example of throwing technology at a social and political problem. That the current web is centralized has little to do with its technical design, and everything to do with economic and structural incentives that have made it that way. It's tempting to say "start afresh", but we'll just be trading our current problems for a new set of problems IPFS introduces. It's a law of nature that pro…
I think there are multiple issues in many contexts wrt decentralised net. You probably won't require Facebook or Twitter for many reasons. There's both a social and tech issue. But there are some things that mirroring and content addressing would be perfect for. Replacement for the current script and files CDN for example. Package/software repos, firmware downloads, news sites, etc. Anything accessed by lots of peopl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Home routers are doing IPv6 firewalling by default, no need for NAT. NAT is strictly inferior to firewalling. (Of course you shouldn't put things on your internet-connected network that need the firewall, just look at it as a porous defense-in-depth element, just like with IPv4)
Does that mean they are assigning random IPv6 addresses to computers on the network for each peer or connection and maintaining a mapping in memory?
For most practical cases just imagine you're getting a big ipv4 range. Whatever you can do with it - you can do the same with ipv6. NAT, no NAT, filtering, static or dynamic assignment.