31–40 of 97 posts
One thing I've never understood is how IPFS would serve dynamic content. Like imagine building amazon.com on IPFS how would that work? Every single page served would have Different hash, because the content is always changing.
This "primer do the decentralized web" title is just bullshit.
"The Decentralized Web" is the WWW system Tim Berners-Lee invented and that we're all using right now. It relies on the DNS and HTTP protocols. This new IPFS-based decentralized web is interesting but it's not even a measurable percentage of web traffic today. Far from being "The". What we need more than anything is to actually realize the beautiful dream TBL had for the WWW. HN is one great example but there should…
No. The web as it works right now is naturally centralised, for a simple reason: the bandwidth costs on a server is proportional to the size of its audience. This is why we need YouTube to begin with, instead of millions of people posting their videos on their personal page. There are other factors of course: firewalls, asymmetric bandwidth, security issues, technical ignorance… But the client-server model does play…
Actually, just like "the cloud" is just someone else's computer, "P2P" is just someone else's server.
Could be that I'm just really out of touch, but I need at least one paragraph saying "What is this?" (and ideally also, "Who is the target audience?" - or "Why would I be interested in reading this?")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't a single-page-app connected to a remote datastore work?
Alright but all of the complexity, and all of the content served, is in the data store, and now what is IPFS even accomplishing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. The web as it works right now is naturally centralised, for a simple reason: the bandwidth costs on a server is proportional to the size of its audience. This is why we need YouTube to begin with, instead of millions of people posting their videos on their personal page. There are other factors of course: firewalls, asymmetric bandwidth, security issues, technical ignorance… But the client-server model does play…
"use a P2P protocol instead". Actually, just like "the cloud" is just someone else's computer, "P2P" is just someone else's server.
Unless your project needs censorship resistance, you can probably ignore this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. The web as it works right now is naturally centralised, for a simple reason: the bandwidth costs on a server is proportional to the size of its audience. This is why we need YouTube to begin with, instead of millions of people posting their videos on their personal page. There are other factors of course: firewalls, asymmetric bandwidth, security issues, technical ignorance… But the client-server model does play…
"use a P2P protocol instead". Actually, just like "the cloud" is just someone else's computer, "P2P" is just someone else's server.
How hard to censor is IPFS? It would be quite disappointing if we managed to switch everyone over to IPFS, and in the end, after all that effort (and the compromises we'd have to make compared to simply using centralized content), governments would remain quite effective at censoring IPFS content. Could ISPs throttle or block IPFS content, for instance? The developers should start assuming some extremely aggressive e…
From what I gathered by reading the whitepaper mass censorship is extremely hard to accomplish. > Could ISPs throttle or block IPFS content, for instance? They wouldn't know what was IPFS and what was regular encrypted TCP, the only way I can tell IPFS traffic apart in wireshark is the port number. Once ISPs start blockings random encrypted connections people will get mad when their games or other applications stop w…
The extreme conclusion of state-sponsored censorship is not a black list or DPI. It is a white list. It is easy to restrict traffic to a small set of addresses that are rigorously monitored for any ability to proxy non-conforming traffic. Everything else would get dropped on the floor.
IPFS and the like sit too high in the OSI layers to combat state sponsored censorship in the long-run.
It makes me wonder what the target market is. If this ever got big, it would just trigger the next step in the arms race it is incapable of sustaining