131–140 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
same reason why people seed torrent?
Notably, no-one seeds torrents from their mobile connections. The cost would be prohibitive, without even getting into the issue of storage.
ipfs pin myhash
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Content distribution. Many people however don't even realise this is a problem, because they have been spoiled by free-as-beer services provided by Google, CloudFlare, Github and various other companies.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm happy to play the naivete card when it comes to downloading. (If the producers didn't want me watching this CAM footage of a new release on YouTube, they wouldn't have uploaded it, wink wink.) I'm a bit more cautious when it comes to uploading.
But you're not uploading something that hasn't been, you're mirroring something that's already up.
If you doubt me, see all verdicts for infringement when bitorrenting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The idea is that some fraction of users will be configured to reshare content, which helps distribution for popular content scale. This seems to work in practice for bittorrent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which makes it about as resilient as regular content hosting, which is not very. Does IPFS work with Tor?
>Which makes it about as resilient as regular content hosting, which is not very. It is decidedly more resilient than regular hosting in that situation.
IPFS so only as resilient as you are good at dodging DMCA notices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Which makes it about as resilient as regular content hosting, which is not very. It is decidedly more resilient than regular hosting in that situation.
How so? IPFS so only as resilient as you are good at dodging DMCA notices.
The equivalent is not practical in traditional HTTP, where content at risk of being taken down is scraped from the server and that snapshot-in-time is hosted as a mirror, generally at a different domain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you suggest?
There's the million-dollar question. I've been bashing my head against it for a few years now. I think an important thing is to give everyone a say in how these large computer networks affect their lives. How to do that in the context of a broken political system isn't clear to me at all.
The idea behind decentralized architecture is: instead of trying to find a better way to agree on one thing, how about we assume from the start that different people will want different things? What do we actually need to agree on?
In the old days we had to agree on everything, because it was technologically infeasible to coordinate plans more than a few times per year. If you need to move bodies to communicate, democracy is what happens.
But we live in a new time where messaging is close to free, so we don't have to agree on everything ahead of time. In a totally decentralized world, we wouldn't have to agree on anything ahead of time. I would meet you in the forest and our respective AIs would go to work helping us quickly and safely negotiate an entire legal framework and set of treaties governing our interactions.
I don't think we will ever get there, I think it will always be a mixture of decentralized and centralized norms. But right now the decentralized architecture is brand new, so it has a huge headroom for growth, so it just makes more sense putting effort into it.
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…
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.
The IPFS powered internet would perhaps lead to more uploads but it would scale significantly better and will be cheaper to maintain. Hence cost can also go down for end users/consumers.
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 S…
If you're hosting content at a certain rate, then the rate drops so that it's less profitable or no longer profitable, wouldn't the proper strategy be to drop that content and then find something worth hosting?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's the million-dollar question. I've been bashing my head against it for a few years now. I think an important thing is to give everyone a say in how these large computer networks affect their lives. How to do that in the context of a broken political system isn't clear to me at all.
You are clearly fond of democracy as a solution to conflicting social goals. Democracy has some nice properties, but also downsides: notably it can only try a single solution at a time. The idea behind decentralized architecture is: instead of trying to find a better way to agree on one thing, how about we assume from the start that different people will want different things? What do we actually need to agree on? In…
I imagine that our AI companions in the forest would just play hyperdimensional space chess with one another, or talk shop about how best to make paper clips, and leave us in the same position we are now. They'll have their own cares and woes.
I don't know if in 2016 I'm a big believer in democracy, but I do believe in community, particularly now that everyone regardless of technical ability is using the web.
That said, I think you make a very good point about variety and trying multiple avenues at once.