Live data from Hacker News

IPFS, Again

macwright.org

121–130 of 227 posts

Re: IPFS, Again

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could probably host a few dozen static blogs on a physical machine for say $100/m. 100 bucks!? I host a dozen unique domains with static content (and a few other services) on a 1/1 VPS for 3 euros/month. At Hetzner, not at a hyperscaler.

Yeah I was thinking a whole server not vm.

Even a real-metal physical box can be had for far less than $100. Even excluding the ranges that are out of stock Kimsufi has a number of options that are more than capable of running "dozens of static blogs" with ease for There are other providers with comparable offers, I mention Kimsufi because for some time I've had one of their low spec units running a couple of simple tasks.

You are not going to be getting brand-new unused high-spec kit with that sort of deal, of course, but you pays your money, you takes your choice!

Re: IPFS, Again

#123
Here's your periodic reminder that IPFS is a distribution mechanism, and not a storage mechanism. It doesn't persist anything. It's like a more granular BitTorrent, and not really a filesystem at all.

This can be very useful in certain situations and projects! But it means that it is not a replacement for a centrally-hosted website... and the IPFS site does a very poor job of conveying this limitation.

(I can't take Filecoin seriously as a 'solution' here either - as far as I can tell, it suffers from the exact same problem as every 'blockchain-backed storage system' I've seen before... it's unable to reliably verify that some peer is actually storing data, without a local copy to verify against.)

Re: IPFS, Again

#125

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 middle ground might be to use a local hosting company that has it's own servers and racks. Pay a bit more, but boycott the big clouds for personal websites. You could probably host a few dozen static blogs on a physical machine for say $100/m. If 100 people do that it's affordable.

> If 100 people do that it's affordable.

If one of those people doesn't mind running as sys-admin and help-desk for the rest...

Though your $100/m is rather higher than it needs to be for that level of service so you won't need the same number of people for that cost/person, someone is still taking on a part-time job doing admin for others.

Re: IPFS, Again

#126
post #80

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…

Filecoin isn't a currency. It's a token that proves "I replicated x amount of data, y reliably, for z amount of time", and (protocol-wise) can be exchanged for file storage services only. The market decides how much file storage is actually worth , by arbitrage. 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 b…

[deleted]

Re: IPFS, Again

#127
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

It will take a long time until NMC will be as popular as BTC if ever. Until then let other people figure out how to implement a proper proof of stake and switch to it when the time comes.

In the mean time merged mining is the best compromise between rock solid chain security and environmental impact.

Re: IPFS, Again

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Using this pattern increases fungibility. Could I ask you to share what makes you think it decreases fungibility?

Re: IPFS, Again

#129
For all the time you spent on this you could have just posted an onion site in about five minutes and spent the rest building a little web-of-trust indexing site to fill the demand for the less than 1,000 people who want to post personal sites on a decentralized web.

Re: IPFS, Again

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPFS doesn't rely on DNS. Most Dat deployments do, however.

Except that, from the article, the only way to really use IPFS for pretty names is to use DNSlink and not IPNS. Because IPNS is unusably slow. So IPFS might not theoretically rely on DNS, but it seems that it does practically rely on DNS if you actually want to use it.

If you want to use it with DNS names, yes.

I have a hunch that IPNS is just broken in its implementation (manifesting as "unusably slow") but I haven't yet had the spare time to investigate this theory..

Post reply on HN