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

WikipediaP2P

wikipediap2p.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 117 posts

Re: WikipediaP2P

#71

Post by hobofan »

lgierth wrote: post #54
hobofan wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but sadly IPFS still needs some optimization for that to be feasible. I published the whole Wikidata dataset as separately accessible entities to IPFS and the initial publishing took ~2 weeks. Theoretically updating the dataset with weekly changes should be pretty fast after that, but if there is a change that impacts the JSON structure of every entity you have to start all over (which recently happened). Ri…

Performance of adding to IPFS has improved in the past months, I recently added 3.7 TB of https://cdn.media.ccc.de and it took ~24h, admittedly these files are each pretty big, while Wikidata sounds like tons of tiny files. One more major improvement is on the way, which is directory sharding using a HAMT data structure: https://github.com/ipfs/go-ipfs/pull/3042

Yeah, it was most certainly the millions of tiny files that were killing the performance, since every publish with IPFS has quite some overhead.

I'm quite excited for directory sharding since it would make the project simpler, but the local filesystem on my server doesn't even seem to be able to handle all the files in a single directory.

Re: WikipediaP2P

#73

Post by pmlnr »

tscs37 wrote: post #65
pmlnr wrote: post #32

We'd be better off by putting wikipedia on IPFS and IPFS into p2p cache.

The problem is that it requires installing third-party software to function (the IPFS client) or putting load on some IPFS gateway.

The original idea requires a 3rd party addon and Chrome. How is this different?

Re: WikipediaP2P

#74

Post by diggan »

tscs37 wrote: post #68
diggan wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessary. Either Wikipedia can help out with hosting their own gateways in addition to the ones running on ipfs.io, OR they can include a js-ipfs node in the browser.

>Wikipedia can help out with hosting their own gateways Which kinda defeats the point of saving bandwidth on their side. >js-ipfs node That could work, though I was under the impressino that the js-ipfs implementation was WIP/Experimental (last I checked)

> Which kinda defeats the point of saving bandwidth on their side.

Traffic doesn't only need to be served by Wikipedia but could also include other volunteers (think archive.org and others) and the setup for helping out would be easy.

> That could work, though I was under the impressino that the js-ipfs implementation was WIP/Experimental (last I checked)

That is absolutely true, which WikipediaP2P is as well, and IPFS for that matter. I was simply pointing out some ways you can make the whole "Wikipedia on IPFS" thing to work in the future.

Re: WikipediaP2P

#75

Post by TallGuyShort »

notheguyouthink wrote: post #63
johnydepp wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely correct!! You can't call 'Climate Change' a controversy now that we all are facing the consequences already!!

My coworker doesn't "believe" in global warming, but i have some sympathy on the lack of belief. I know that for most topics i make uninformed decisions based on the information created/curated by intelligent people. Eg, global warming, vaccinations, etcetc. Sure, some of it may seem obvious, but lets be honest - i have no clue about what a vaccination does in the body, nor how climate change works. They're not schoo…

>> part of the problem with green energy was that it didn't exist because no one was making money off it

Government subsidies and mandates can help that. If global warming is a problem and we circumvent the market to funnel money to green energy, a hoax could also circumvent the market to funnel money to green energy.

Re: WikipediaP2P

#76

Post by wyager »

osense wrote: post #55
oceanofsolaris wrote: post #48

I understand that this is an early implementation. Nevertheless, I have a question: how does it make sure the site you receive is actually the a) correct one (someone could distribute incorrect pages e.g. about controversial topics like North Korea or Climate Change; or inject some malicious code that e.g. uses your account to submit changes to wikipedia) b) most recent one (or at least a reasonably new one). I imagi…

> controversial topics like [..] Climate Change You're making me sad on a Friday afternoon.

For every person who thinks global warming isn't real (for some reason), there's someone who thinks we're all going to get killed by a giant global warming-induced tsunami like in that awful movie. Climate change is controversial, because people are making many claims without sufficient evidence (e.g. completely trusting some set of our current predictive models) or using it as a justification for political ends (like subsidizing electric cars).

Re: WikipediaP2P

#77

Post by CuriousSkeptic »

notheguyouthink wrote: post #63
johnydepp wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely correct!! You can't call 'Climate Change' a controversy now that we all are facing the consequences already!!

My coworker doesn't "believe" in global warming, but i have some sympathy on the lack of belief. I know that for most topics i make uninformed decisions based on the information created/curated by intelligent people. Eg, global warming, vaccinations, etcetc. Sure, some of it may seem obvious, but lets be honest - i have no clue about what a vaccination does in the body, nor how climate change works. They're not schoo…

A strong incentive to believe it to be a hoax, probably kicking in all kinds of biases, is simply how scary it would be to believe it is true.

Re: WikipediaP2P

#78

Post by 0xfeba »

notheguyouthink wrote: post #63
johnydepp wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely correct!! You can't call 'Climate Change' a controversy now that we all are facing the consequences already!!

My coworker doesn't "believe" in global warming, but i have some sympathy on the lack of belief. I know that for most topics i make uninformed decisions based on the information created/curated by intelligent people. Eg, global warming, vaccinations, etcetc. Sure, some of it may seem obvious, but lets be honest - i have no clue about what a vaccination does in the body, nor how climate change works. They're not schoo…

> Why would climate change be a hoax? Who is making money off of a "climate change hoax"?

This is one thing I really don't understand as well. Ok, there's X amount of proof in favor of AGW. Where's the evidence for your claims it's all an elaborate, international hoax? Where's the money?

I've never gotten a good answer. Usually just deflections to how "the Earth always fluctuates" and other dismissive claims that have already been answered a thousand times had they bothered to actually research it.

It's witnessing confirmation bias.

Re: WikipediaP2P

#79

Post by tscs37 »

pmlnr wrote: post #73
tscs37 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that it requires installing third-party software to function (the IPFS client) or putting load on some IPFS gateway.

The original idea requires a 3rd party addon and Chrome. How is this different?

Wikipedia on IPFS as an addon would also require operating a node to fulfill the goal of the original project, namely to save bandwidth for Wikipedia.

Simply pointing it at gateway.ipfs.io would achieve nothing but shift the problem around.

Re: WikipediaP2P

#80

Post by grzm »

wyager wrote: post #76
osense wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> controversial topics like [..] Climate Change You're making me sad on a Friday afternoon.

For every person who thinks global warming isn't real (for some reason), there's someone who thinks we're all going to get killed by a giant global warming-induced tsunami like in that awful movie. Climate change is controversial, because people are making many claims without sufficient evidence (e.g. completely trusting some set of our current predictive models) or using it as a justification for political ends (lik…

"people are making many claims without sufficient evidence (e.g. completely trusting some set of our current predictive models)"

Do you believe climate change is a problem and should be addressed but see others making claims beyond what the evidence supports? Or do you think climate change isn't an issue? If the former, what in particular are you thinking of? If the latter, what would it take to convince you that it's an issue?

Post reply on HN