51–60 of 106 posts
Why not use Beaker[0] and achieve the same thing, but on linux and windows too? It has a great community too [0]( http://beakerbrowser.com/ )
This comment is just advertising for the Beaker browser. It could at least be open about it and say: "Also check out Beaker, with similar functionality".
It's not nice or intelligent to say "don't do this in a different way because we are already doing it in our own way".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I missing something? Beaker requires you to use their browser? Not really apples to apples
Beaker is a browser that supports http:// and dat:// - you can: - use Beaker to publish/"host" dat:// websites (as you can use Hearth to publish ipfs websites) - use Beaker or any dat:// client to browse dat:// websites - use any browser to browse dat:// websites via http through hashbase.io (similar to eternum.io)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily. IPFS is sort of like Bittorrent on steroids. You can think of yourself as the first seeder of your website, but as long as there are other network participants that have a full copy of your site, your home PC doesn't need to be online for people to access it.
I'm a layman in this stuff, can IPFS sites be accesible from http?
(xmpp might be a special case here - I'm uncertain of the underlying transport for jabber; could be that js+http(s) is enough to simulate actual jabber client?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> though this of course somewhat defies the point of it being p2p Not really. Need ways of bridging the gap.
I guess what I meant was that using hashbase exclusively over http and not switching to using dat:// clients would be somewhat defying the point, but yeah, it's a good bridge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why you'd say that everyone has a forced part in hosting it, since IPFS only pulls files you request to your computer.
After your comment I did a quick bit of reading and realized I'd made a fundamental mistake regarding how I thought I knew IPFS worked (vs. other decentralized file system formats). The mistake I'd made was thinking it worked more or less similar to Bitcoin where every node holds the whole chain, where it really works more like torrents in that you download the set of files and then reseed. Thanks for pointing out th…
Just because something CAN be used to commit a crime (say, the expectation of privacy in your own home), we don’t eliminate it to avoid that edge case.
Not all technology needs a law enforcement backdoor, in my view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I missing something? Beaker requires you to use their browser? Not really apples to apples
Beaker is a browser that supports http:// and dat:// - you can: - use Beaker to publish/"host" dat:// websites (as you can use Hearth to publish ipfs websites) - use Beaker or any dat:// client to browse dat:// websites - use any browser to browse dat:// websites via http through hashbase.io (similar to eternum.io)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After your comment I did a quick bit of reading and realized I'd made a fundamental mistake regarding how I thought I knew IPFS worked (vs. other decentralized file system formats). The mistake I'd made was thinking it worked more or less similar to Bitcoin where every node holds the whole chain, where it really works more like torrents in that you download the set of files and then reseed. Thanks for pointing out th…
This is the same question that applies to any other medium, context, or means of interaction: who decides what is illicit? Just because something CAN be used to commit a crime (say, the expectation of privacy in your own home), we don’t eliminate it to avoid that edge case. Not all technology needs a law enforcement backdoor, in my view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After your comment I did a quick bit of reading and realized I'd made a fundamental mistake regarding how I thought I knew IPFS worked (vs. other decentralized file system formats). The mistake I'd made was thinking it worked more or less similar to Bitcoin where every node holds the whole chain, where it really works more like torrents in that you download the set of files and then reseed. Thanks for pointing out th…
This is the same question that applies to any other medium, context, or means of interaction: who decides what is illicit? Just because something CAN be used to commit a crime (say, the expectation of privacy in your own home), we don’t eliminate it to avoid that edge case. Not all technology needs a law enforcement backdoor, in my view.
The first analog that is at all comparable is hypertext and the web interface to the internet. This is much the same except it's harder to clean up.
Who decides what is illicit? Like I said, I'm not trying to start a semantics discussion. I'm not talking about morally debatable subjects. There are some blatantly disgusting things out there that have ruinous effects on people who've made no decision to take part. A platform like IPFS allows that to gain a new root, and deeper this time.
Hence my posed question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why you'd say that everyone has a forced part in hosting it, since IPFS only pulls files you request to your computer.
After your comment I did a quick bit of reading and realized I'd made a fundamental mistake regarding how I thought I knew IPFS worked (vs. other decentralized file system formats). The mistake I'd made was thinking it worked more or less similar to Bitcoin where every node holds the whole chain, where it really works more like torrents in that you download the set of files and then reseed. Thanks for pointing out th…
The mistake to avoid here would be trying to design censorship into an otherwise open and decentralized content distribution system.
Don't try to shut down the content. If someone was harmed in the making of the content, then use it as evidence to deal with the root of the issue; otherwise it's none of your concern.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After your comment I did a quick bit of reading and realized I'd made a fundamental mistake regarding how I thought I knew IPFS worked (vs. other decentralized file system formats). The mistake I'd made was thinking it worked more or less similar to Bitcoin where every node holds the whole chain, where it really works more like torrents in that you download the set of files and then reseed. Thanks for pointing out th…
... at the same time making it harder to shut down caches of the same illicit content. I recognize this is already a problem with torrents, but then my question becomes how do we not repeat the mistake? The mistake to avoid here would be trying to design censorship into an otherwise open and decentralized content distribution system. Don't try to shut down the content. If someone was harmed in the making of the conte…
I think you're missing the larger picture, though. It's never isolated to singular instances. If the content is decentralized, then so can the problem be.
You wouldn't say smallpox shouldn't be completely eradicated because "it never hurt me, so it's none of my concern."
Your solution is reactive. The problem with reactive solutions is that they don't solve the problem, they can only continually try to keep up with it.
Your comment inspires another question: what is everybody so concerned about having censored? It's not exactly a problem [in North America or online].