91–100 of 286 posts
If I try to host a javascript application that uses LocalStorage for saving data, it would be visible to any other ipfs JavaScript application because they all exist under the same domain, right? Have you thought about having the URLs be something like ipfs:// /index.html instead of http://local host/ /index.html so browsers keep the LocalStorage for each ipfs hash separated?
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'm so lost at this assertion. How is this a social / political problem?
IPFS is not permanent hosting. It is not an attempt to take power away from others and distribute it to the masses. It is purely a technical problem, which i think is objectively true.
I have a feeling that you believe IPFS is partially designed to subvert governments/etc. And to an extent, that may be possible, but it is being built with DMCA's in mind. IPFS wants to allow governments / copyright holders to take content down from the network. It is not trying to become a pirate haven. Why? Well, mainly because piracy inhibits adoption. There may not be a way to DMCA currently (i haven't checked in months), but there are Github issue(s) on it. The creators don't want to see IPFS blocked in countries because it can permanently host illegal content. Which makes a ton of sense.
The problem IPFS is trying to solve, as i see it, is purely technical. As advertised in pretty much every pitch i've seen for this technology, we are simply scaling too fast in storage and not fast enough in bandwidth. It appears impossible to handle the infrastructure load of files we are creating. IPFS solves this by automatically pulling content as locally as possible, reducing network overhead. Furthermore, it means that a DDOS/viral/etc of a central resource will not kill it. It's safely and mostly permanently (barring DMCA/etc requests) available.
So with that said, what political and social problem do you see IPFS trying to solve? I don't see any.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For #1, yes. For #2, also yes, and there's nothing to stop you from leeching save the goodness of your heart and your own personal laziness.
Since it's impossible to know who owns, claims to own, or has licensed any particular content, #1 is a fatal flaw unless users can officially receive immunity (which seems doubtful). Otherwise we'll have a situation like speeding on the highway, where "everyone does it" at the risk of a random ticket, but in this case the fines are thousands to millions of dollars.
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…
There is merit in doing the technical work to make a decentralized paradigm easier, but the lack of an economic model is the tougher of the two problems.
IPFS appears here every 6 months, every 6 months the same questions get asked, the same problems get raised, the same collective sigh of bewilderment/disappointment appears to emanate from the comments, and it goes away again for another 6 months. Everybody wants something this clever and community-spirited to work, but the basic problem is, I don't want my data to be vulnerable to slow, unreliable endpoints, or peop…
Sounds like XMPP.
Suppose I'm poking around IPFS and unintentionally download some unauthorized copyrighted content. Is my computer going to automatically start sharing this content, exposing me and my ISP to legal action? Or if there is a way to prevent sharing particular content that I've accessed, what's to stop me from leeching everything and never sharing anything? (Edit: Ah, now I see "BitSwap" as possibly addressing my second q…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since it's impossible to know who owns, claims to own, or has licensed any particular content, #1 is a fatal flaw unless users can officially receive immunity (which seems doubtful). Otherwise we'll have a situation like speeding on the highway, where "everyone does it" at the risk of a random ticket, but in this case the fines are thousands to millions of dollars.
I don't see how it's bad: the hosting user receives no credit, and local mirroring keeps retrieval speeds high. Your users effectively become a giant CDN for you. Who would sue?
Immunity is not likely to happen, as it would amount to granting redistribution rights to anyone who downloads a piece of content. So the political solution is out. Anonymity is a requirement.
That's not to say IPFS is useless. It's just not going to "replace HTTP" or any significant part of the web as long as it's possible to see who's sharing what. Or if it does, the sharks will feed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how it's bad: the hosting user receives no credit, and local mirroring keeps retrieval speeds high. Your users effectively become a giant CDN for you. Who would sue?
I wouldn't sue anyone. But I can watch music videos on YouTube without contacting all of the the relevant rights holders to ensure both the uploader and YouTube have permission to show me the video. On a distributed file share lacking anonymity and/or immunity, I have to ensure that I have those rights before viewing (thus distributing) any content. Immunity is not likely to happen, as it would amount to granting red…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't sue anyone. But I can watch music videos on YouTube without contacting all of the the relevant rights holders to ensure both the uploader and YouTube have permission to show me the video. On a distributed file share lacking anonymity and/or immunity, I have to ensure that I have those rights before viewing (thus distributing) any content. Immunity is not likely to happen, as it would amount to granting red…
No, that doesn't add up: You only host data that's already available on a public network, pretty much by definition. If the rights distributor didn'f want it to be globally accessible, they wouldn't have put it up on IPFS.