71–80 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel Nano is doing an outstanding job. It's what bitcoin was supposed to be.
The funny thing about every comment which positively mentions Nano is the writer invariably has zero idea what tradeoffs are made in the consensus protocol to make it faster. There are no free lunches in distributed systems which must contend with byzantine failures.
Just today I was looking into IPFS vs DAT, does anybody have any insights about the similarities/differences other than the ones listed here [1]? From far away, DAT looks smaller and better documented (perhaps less ambitious, too?) Apparently the best IPFS overview is the 2015 paper [2] which looks pretty daunting and does not seem to cover any practical considerations. 1: https://docs.datproject.org/docs/faq#how-is-…
tl;dr: I feel that IPFS is the smaller more tightly scoped project that fits better into the existing web ecosystem. Dat has its own browser and versioning and other stuff bundled in, and IPFS works with normal browsers (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20162972) in a way aligned the web's graceful degradation principle.
Just today I was looking into IPFS vs DAT, does anybody have any insights about the similarities/differences other than the ones listed here [1]? From far away, DAT looks smaller and better documented (perhaps less ambitious, too?) Apparently the best IPFS overview is the 2015 paper [2] which looks pretty daunting and does not seem to cover any practical considerations. 1: https://docs.datproject.org/docs/faq#how-is-…
I consider dat:// to be the better protocol, in part because of what you mentioned. Other advantages are the lack of duplicating data on disk (IPFS makes a copy of all data it shares) as well as having a versioned history of all changes. That way app owners can'tp ublish malicious versions while preventing people from using the non-malicious ones. Essentially, dat:// behaves like BitTorrent but the torrent data can c…
Just today I was looking into IPFS vs DAT, does anybody have any insights about the similarities/differences other than the ones listed here [1]? From far away, DAT looks smaller and better documented (perhaps less ambitious, too?) Apparently the best IPFS overview is the 2015 paper [2] which looks pretty daunting and does not seem to cover any practical considerations. 1: https://docs.datproject.org/docs/faq#how-is-…
DAT is run by influential hobbyists of independent means, with occasional funding from non-profit organisations. IPFS is essentially run by a very well funded (300musd) private company. For this reason alone I think DAT is the more likely to succeed. It seems hard to reconcile the longevity of a truly distributed protocol with the need of a private company to retain control.
For efficient file transfer protocol between peers, Bittorrent protocol have multiple independent implementations that is working right now. They should build on top of that. Instead, both DAT and IPFS try to implement their own protocol with dubious additional features. For IPFS, it even relies on traditional DNS. What are they thinking?
This might sound a bit weird, but when I look at the employee base of protocol labs (the makers of IPFS), the most impressive employees are the business people. Multiple Harvard Business School graduates, tons of Stanford degrees. For the technical people, some are impressive, but no where near the stature of the business people. No distinguished ex-FAANG engineers, no principal engineers from notable companies, a fe…
Something 20+ years of development experience has taught me is that developers vary a lot . People who went to Ivy League schools can be amazing and they can be awful, and the same is true for every other dev who went to a 'lesser' college or didn't get a degree at all. Certificates don't tell you much. Output is what matters. You should judge Protocol Labs on what they build rather than where their employees went to…
I don't want to say they're bad at what they're doing, as I don't know how hard it is, but at least a better pinning implementation seems easy to do and relatively useful. Currently, to pin something, the command will block for hours/days or even for ever if the content is large and rare. If my torrent client worked that way, it just wouldn't get used.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DAT is run by influential hobbyists of independent means, with occasional funding from non-profit organisations. IPFS is essentially run by a very well funded (300musd) private company. For this reason alone I think DAT is the more likely to succeed. It seems hard to reconcile the longevity of a truly distributed protocol with the need of a private company to retain control.
My bet is both likely to fail. NIH syndrome is strong with both cases. For efficient file transfer protocol between peers, Bittorrent protocol have multiple independent implementations that is working right now. They should build on top of that. Instead, both DAT and IPFS try to implement their own protocol with dubious additional features. For IPFS, it even relies on traditional DNS. What are they thinking?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who is going to defend the free internet agains Azure, AWS and Google Cloud? This is exactly what the http://metacurrency.org project aims to bring to life: http://holo.host/learn/ and http://ceptr.org The distributed pattern they have created combines Git local source chains with cryptographic signing and BitTorrent’s DHT to create easily evolvable apps using http://holochain.org . Peer validation enforces rules d…
Why don't we go back to simple store and forward like mechanisms like net news, just with enhanced content formatting? Store and forward static websites.
Anyone remember the P2P craze of the early 2000s'? Or was it late 90s? What's left over from that? Freenet? What I'm always wondering about: Someone needs to foot the server/bandwidth bills. Who? If you run a Pi on your home network and serve requests with your 5MB/s upload: That's fine. More power to you. We need more of that. (and in that case, you are paying your ISP) But the transformation envisioned and the band…
IPFS is providing some value already for blockchain dapps to deploy UIs, albeit currently with a dependency on centralized ipfs gateways. Eg. https://augur.net/ipfs-redirect.html
- Let's say the app/UI is 50MB
- 500 users download 1 update per month
- 10GB S3 capacity for all the releases (not necessary because usually users are expected to run latest release)
- Data transfer out: 25GB/mo
Monthly cost of Amazon S3 for above use case: $1/mo (a little bit more, but you get the idea)
Or, you can get UI releases from Github or Gitlab for free.
That's the value. $0.
Who is going to defend the free internet agains Azure, AWS and Google Cloud? They are the very opposite of a free and open internet where everyone can "run a website" on her own machine. It pains me to see a great idea like the Interplanetary File System still not working. I had similar experiences with IPFS and yes, we do need a project like this, only without the broken incentive structure attached to it. Why a "Fi…
The same principle goes for Namecoin, incidentally. The token embodies the value of the resource. I actually think this kind of thing is a much more stable base for a currency than Bitcoin's "it's valuable because we say so" system.