Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IPFS is the Distributed Web

ipfs.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 286 posts

Re: IPFS is the Distributed Web

#101

Post by splintercell »

d--b wrote: post #98

I have a truly naive question about the distributed web: what makes the supporters of it think it will be any different from the original web. I mean, isn't it likely that at some point, there will be the need for a centralized search engine for it? Isn't it unavoidable that big companies like facebook runs their own non-distributed subnetwork, so that it can deliver standard functionality to all its users? The origi…

IPFS + Ethereum Smart Contracts = Distributed Web

The idea is that we run that centralized search engine via Smart Contracts.

In other words, using a decentralized currency such as Bitcoin and decentralized execution environment like Ethereum, we create softwares which pays people for providing CPU time and disk space (facilitated by IPFS).

Few missing pieces of this puzzle are homomorphic encryption implemented on Smart Contracts level which will allow that CPU service.

Once that's done then we can have the distributed web of the next level.

Re: IPFS is the Distributed Web

#102

Post by httpagent »

d--b wrote: post #98

I have a truly naive question about the distributed web: what makes the supporters of it think it will be any different from the original web. I mean, isn't it likely that at some point, there will be the need for a centralized search engine for it? Isn't it unavoidable that big companies like facebook runs their own non-distributed subnetwork, so that it can deliver standard functionality to all its users? The origi…

I am a novice, but I'll do my best to answer. IPFS isn't a replacement for the existing web like many of its predecessors, for the purposes of your question, it really works more like a drop-in shared caching system. The site host doesn't have to participate in IPFS for this to work.

As an example: You host a blog. As an IPFS user, I surf to the blog and store your content in my cache. When another IPFS user attempts to access your blog they may pull directly from my cached version, or from the original host (depending which is fastest). Merkle DAGs are used to hash content for quick locating, to ensure content is up-to-date, and to build a linked line of content over time.

This gets more interesting if there's a widespread service outage. IPFS nodes will continue to serve the most up-to-date version of the web even if the web is fragmented. As new information becomes available it is integrated into the existing cache and then propagated to the rest of the fragments.

I still struggle to understand how this works with databased content, but I do believe IPFS addresses this content.

Re: IPFS is the Distributed Web

#103

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

d--b wrote: post #98

I have a truly naive question about the distributed web: what makes the supporters of it think it will be any different from the original web. I mean, isn't it likely that at some point, there will be the need for a centralized search engine for it? Isn't it unavoidable that big companies like facebook runs their own non-distributed subnetwork, so that it can deliver standard functionality to all its users? The origi…

I can think of two big differences to consider:

1) The web as a whole is decentralized, but any given web site is centralized by default. A webmaster can "push" a modification or deletion from a central server and have it trickle down through caches/proxies unless someone like archive.org makes a deliberate decision to archive it. In systems like IPFS, content deletion and modification follows a model more like garbage collection, where pointers to old data can hang around and continue working even if an "authoritative" pointer is pointing to something else. Basically, nobody has the authority to break a link (law/policy-mandated filters notwithstanding).

2) The web doesn't really have any built-in mechanisms to promote redundancy for durability, availability, or performance purposes. By default, there's one daemon serving one copy. Everything else (CDNs, forward/reverse proxies, failover) is some kind of optimization tacked on after-the-fact.

Re: IPFS is the Distributed Web

#104

Post by daveguy »

d--b wrote: post #98

I have a truly naive question about the distributed web: what makes the supporters of it think it will be any different from the original web. I mean, isn't it likely that at some point, there will be the need for a centralized search engine for it? Isn't it unavoidable that big companies like facebook runs their own non-distributed subnetwork, so that it can deliver standard functionality to all its users? The origi…

The difference is IPFS (or similar) would distribute content. Currently communication is distributed, but content is not. IPFS is like https, but where every page is a bittorrent. There are challenges for security in distributing services and monetization. However, the key is that content would be distributed. YouTube probably would not switch to ipfs, but DNS (what was targeted recently) would make sense. A DNS host list should be more distributed. Even with DNS there is a dynamic content challenge. When a DNS entry changes, it would still need to propagate.

This brings it back to a distributed communication problem. If you could distribute content more consistently and 100,000 computers could step in as dns providers with authentic data rather than concentrating dns at dyn or Google it would help. That will still require protocol updates so that the fail over uses local content. Really ipfs and distributed content could be a component to help with distribution. It definitely isn't a complete solution alone (yet -- there is a push to make it the solution).

Re: IPFS is the Distributed Web

#105

Post by IanCal »

tscs37 wrote: post #36
IanCal wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the key is leaked, it means someone can alter what the name points to, but all previous versions would still be available as far as I understand it. No content is changed, only the pointer to the "newest" data.

That is true but most external or IPFS-external sites will probably want to point at the IPNS link, bookmarks are gonna point at the IPNS link, etc. In the same way you could still use the old IP + header manipulation if someone took over a Domain in DNS, it's possible and you can use the old site but in reality you're gonna have lots of people on the malicious attacker's site.

I think that's an important distinction though, and it doesn't mesh with what I thought you meant by

> since old content remains visible and online but if the private key is leaked or the node is malicious, it has exactly 0 protection

The old content remains visible and online if the private key is leaked, afaik.

I think there was some discussion about having there be a chain, so each updated entry would point back to the previous one. I'm not sure where that is (and if it is) on the roadmap now, but that would also allow users to go back to a known good version. This mitigates some, though not all, problems.

Re: IPFS is the Distributed Web

#107

Post by glibgil »

daveguy wrote: post #104
d--b wrote: post #98

I have a truly naive question about the distributed web: what makes the supporters of it think it will be any different from the original web. I mean, isn't it likely that at some point, there will be the need for a centralized search engine for it? Isn't it unavoidable that big companies like facebook runs their own non-distributed subnetwork, so that it can deliver standard functionality to all its users? The origi…

The difference is IPFS (or similar) would distribute content . Currently communication is distributed, but content is not. IPFS is like https, but where every page is a bittorrent. There are challenges for security in distributing services and monetization. However, the key is that content would be distributed. YouTube probably would not switch to ipfs, but DNS (what was targeted recently) would make sense. A DNS hos…

The internet may run on content (storage) and communication, but both those things run on computation. Until computation can be safely distributed real changes can't happen

Re: IPFS is the Distributed Web

#109

Post by wyager »

glibgil wrote: post #107
daveguy wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is IPFS (or similar) would distribute content . Currently communication is distributed, but content is not. IPFS is like https, but where every page is a bittorrent. There are challenges for security in distributing services and monetization. However, the key is that content would be distributed. YouTube probably would not switch to ipfs, but DNS (what was targeted recently) would make sense. A DNS hos…

The internet may run on content (storage) and communication, but both those things run on computation . Until computation can be safely distributed real changes can't happen

What do you mean? It seems to me that the single largest destructive force on the internet is forcible content takedowns. IPFS is immune to those.

Re: IPFS is the Distributed Web

#110

Post by singham »

daveguy wrote: post #104
d--b wrote: post #98

I have a truly naive question about the distributed web: what makes the supporters of it think it will be any different from the original web. I mean, isn't it likely that at some point, there will be the need for a centralized search engine for it? Isn't it unavoidable that big companies like facebook runs their own non-distributed subnetwork, so that it can deliver standard functionality to all its users? The origi…

The difference is IPFS (or similar) would distribute content . Currently communication is distributed, but content is not. IPFS is like https, but where every page is a bittorrent. There are challenges for security in distributing services and monetization. However, the key is that content would be distributed. YouTube probably would not switch to ipfs, but DNS (what was targeted recently) would make sense. A DNS hos…

With the web going more mobile with less storage space. Why would anyone would want to be a node in such a network where you have to cache content for others.
Post reply on HN