Live data from Hacker News

IPFS, Again

macwright.org

111–120 of 227 posts

Re: IPFS, Again

#111

Unfortunately, a lot of the problems in this blog post can only be solved by squaring Zooko's Triangle[1]. Most refutations of Zooko's Triangle depend on some form of blockchain. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooko%27s_triangle

Just to give an example of a blockchain approach to this: Ethereum Name Service [1]. 1. https://ens.domains/

I can't support Ethereum as it uses proof-of-work, and while it is a different implementation than Bitcoin, proof-of-work is inherently energy-intensive / environmentally problematic.

If blockchain technology were to become popular and widely used by ordinary people, its already worrying environmental impact would skyrocket, assuming the technology is capable of scaling at all. We need to bring the energy consumption of blockchain technology down to a manageable level, and that means abandoning proof-of-work as far as I can tell.

Re: IPFS, Again

#112
post #64

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…

BitTorrent, Tor, Bitcoin, and the other cryptocurrencies are the results of "the P2P craze of the early 2000s". They resulted in Wikileaks, Snowden, and Trump, not to mention the current blockchain feeding frenzy. Freenet is, by comparison, somewhat less important.

I'm puzzled by your comment because in the second paragraph you provide the answer to the question your third paragraph is about. If people are paying their ISPs for bandwidth in things like dollars, what's the problem? It's true that bandwidth is more expensive when you buy it retail from ISPs rather than wholesale in data centers, but only by a factor of two or three, so this is only an issue for the most bandwidth-intensive applications, such as Netflix streaming.

Bandwidth and computation are extremely cheap now, so I don't think this is really an issue. As a point of comparison, when I started browsing the web in a graphical web browser in 1993, I was running it on a ≈100-MIPS RS/6000 with a couple of dozen other people. There were nearly a thousand web servers (in the world, not on the RS/6000), but each one could only serve about one or two hits per second, mostly on machines similar to that one. Shortly after that, my university, with a few thousand students, upgraded its shared connection to 45 megabits per second, as part of a contract to manage a supercomputer center in another state.

My cellphone runs about 10,000 MIPS, and would have no trouble handling 5000 hits per second; this is more than the entire WWW at the time and well into 1994. Most homes in rich countries have more individual bandwidth than I was sharing with hundreds of other active users at the time.

We don't have a shortage of bandwidth or computation. We have a shortage of community, a shortage of innovation, a shortage of cooperation, a shortage of imagination, and a shortage of freedom. But bandwidth and computation are abundant in a way that was unimaginable in the days when we built the WWW.

Re: IPFS, Again

#113
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never tried ENS but namecoin works flawlessly as intended. It is actually more reliable than classic DNS. It may have failed at adoption, but the problem of decentralizing DNS has been solved.

According to Wikipedia, Namecoin uses proof-of-work just like Bitcoin, and is therefore very energy-intensive / an environmental disaster. Therefore I could not support Namecoin even if it works perfectly as you say it does. We're going to need a more environmentally-friendly solution to decentralizing DNS.

As long as Bitcoin exists you can do merged mining with Namecoin. This means there is literally zero additional cost and impact on the environment for mining.

If the very unlikely case occurs and bitcoin stops being a thing there is always the possibility to change the POW algorithm. Until then Namecoin is a solution that works ultra reliably since years and most importantly unlike other solutions it works today.

Re: IPFS, Again

#114
post #74
post #61

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?

> NIH syndrome is strong with both cases.

Seriously. IPFS decided the standard URL format wasn't good enough so invented something worse, which was pretty funny/sad. I never saw reasons for it that made any sense.

See:

https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs/issues/227

[EDIT] here's the original, deeply "LOLWUT?" justification for it, quoted in this comment on another issue. Other justifications were given but this was the motivation. Oh man. Wow.

https://github.com/ipfs/go-ipfs/issues/1678#issuecomment-139...

[EDIT] farther down, same author as the quoted text in the above comment: "wish unix:// wasn't taken by unix sockets." Oh FFS, guys. Hahaha.

Re: IPFS, Again

#115
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Wikipedia, Namecoin uses proof-of-work just like Bitcoin, and is therefore very energy-intensive / an environmental disaster. Therefore I could not support Namecoin even if it works perfectly as you say it does. We're going to need a more environmentally-friendly solution to decentralizing DNS.

As long as Bitcoin exists you can do merged mining with Namecoin. This means there is literally zero additional cost and impact on the environment for mining. If the very unlikely case occurs and bitcoin stops being a thing there is always the possibility to change the POW algorithm. Until then Namecoin is a solution that works ultra reliably since years and most importantly unlike other solutions it works today.

If Namecoin were to become popular, wouldn't that encourage more mining of Bitcoin even if you were doing merged mining? It seems like if Namecoin took off then people would just say the reverse, "Don't worry about the environmental damage of Bitcoin, people were already mining Namecoin so there's no additional harm."

Re: IPFS, Again

#116
I tried to port libp2p to c++. Each time, I got discouraged by so many sub projects linked together. I really don’t like the way they organize code.

Re: IPFS, Again

#117
post #29

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…

> (there is no FFI/C lib Ic an bind my Rust app to)

Language choices in both have set off my "this is doomed to obscurity" alarm bells for precisely that reason. You don't write the reference implementation for a new Internet protocol—especially the core library for it, and especially a very complex one—in a language that can't easily be included in most other languages. So, probably C.

Dat in particular seems great but ain't no way I'm relying on a large JS project for anything I don't absolutely have to, on my own time, especially if it deals with my files.

Re: IPFS, Again

#118
post #44
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was namecoin way before that, with .bit domains and failed to solve anything.

I never tried ENS but namecoin works flawlessly as intended. It is actually more reliable than classic DNS. It may have failed at adoption, but the problem of decentralizing DNS has been solved.

It may have failed at adoption, but I'm really hoping Handshake succeeds. They have a better go-to-market strategy.

https://handshake.org/

Re: IPFS, Again

#119

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…

Now scroll down to the Engineering section on the DFINITY team page (a team in the same space with similar deep pockets)

https://dfinity.org/team

Re: IPFS, Again

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah I think we should, and storing and forwarding is exactly what Holochain does. I think there are different use cases for different tasks. I really like, and use, Scuttlebutt and DAT - which also store and forward data. Scuttlebutt has been awesome for me to see that a social network can be completely hosted by it’s users. I think Holochain and Ceptr are here to help us evolve how we work together and do our accou…

How is reducing the fungibility of money not a step backwards?
Post reply on HN