Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Filecoin Foundation Successfully Deploys IPFS in Space

fil.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 215 posts

Re: Filecoin Foundation Successfully Deploys IPFS in Space

#141

Post by fsflover »

chpatrick wrote: post #41
thefounder wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the torrents didn’t move to IPFS already? I think it looks more like DoA than standing the test of time. From my experience it’s a “heavy tech”/resource hog hog that does not appeal neither to developers nor to end users(it has no killer app)

Isn't IPFS pretty much the same tech as torrents with magnet links? I'm not sure there's any benefit. I think the challenge with torrents is maintaining communities of seeders without getting taken down, but I don't think IPFS really helps with that.

Are they interoperable with torrents yet?

Re: Filecoin Foundation Successfully Deploys IPFS in Space

#142

Post by bitzun »

dannyw wrote: post #7

Filecoin is probably one of the few cryptocurrencies with intrinsic value, even if the amount is debatable. IPFS has stood the test of time and seems like a good protocol; and a cryptocurrency that can be used to pay for storage is not valueless.

It has the same intrinsic value as the other cryptocurrencies: Illegal activity (in this case, piracy).

Re: Filecoin Foundation Successfully Deploys IPFS in Space

#143

Post by bunderbunder »

verdverm wrote: post #114
bunderbunder wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. But, going back to my comment about cheap. This claim: > The benefit of this is that you can fetch the data from anywhere Only works if the data I want is being replicated in many locations. But storage in spacecraft is presumably a tightly constrained resource, due to the need to use technology that's space-hardened and has an extremely good reliability record, and is therefore probably far from being both cutti…

I don't think price is the point at this time. We need to start thinking about how to manage data transfer where latency is significant Imagine shipping an IPFS node to Mars and being able to have content consistency

The unstated major premise of a statement like "we need to start thinking about..." is that we aren't already thinking about it. But I don't think that premise holds in this case.

See, for example, DTN, which is already being used to do real work on the ISS. There are also plans use it elsewhere, including in some future lunar missions. https://www.nasa.gov/communicating-with-missions/delay-disru...

Re: Filecoin Foundation Successfully Deploys IPFS in Space

#144

Post by m3kw9 »

snvzz wrote: post #124
m3kw9 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you gonna have 3 people watching YouTube in space after using millions to send them there?

For your example, sending one copy to space is better than sending three copies.

Not seeing how starlink can’t just put a hd and serve stuff.

Re: Filecoin Foundation Successfully Deploys IPFS in Space

#146

Post by [deleted] »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #107
bunderbunder wrote: post #30

I'm still a little lost. Could someone more knowledgeable than me explain how operations in space would benefit from a public content-addressable filesystem? This seems like the kind of application that works best when bandwidth and storage are cheap, and I would have assumed that that, in space, both are about as far from cheap as you can get.

You're asking about why run this service in space, but this service is a reliable scalable data store. Ask instead what kinds of data would you want in space, and why? The throughput probably won't be great, but mainly if we assume 1:1 not broadcast connections! There will be roving access, not continual, to a given satellite - a fact until there are thousands of other satellites also serving ipfs. Costs will be high…

[deleted]

Re: Filecoin Foundation Successfully Deploys IPFS in Space

#147

Post by sseagull »

geokon wrote: post #77
grumbel wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has it? I have never seen anybody using IPFS in the wild, even projects for which it should be well suited (archive.org, Linux package distribution, Git, Lemmy, Imgur, CivitAI), don't use it. Worse yet, IPFS still provides no real way to deal with private or local data, which drastically limits its use. I love the idea about data being addressable by hash, but I don't feel IPFS has actually delivered anything meaning…

Wouldn't all those examples also work just as easily with torrents/magnet-links? I think in all those cases a central server distribution model has unfortunately been "good enough" for the majority of users (even though their data is mined and ads are injected) When it comes to FOSS, I personally don't understand why something like a package manager isn't P2P by default. It feels very aligned with the hacker culture…

> Wouldn't all those examples also work just as easily with torrents/magnet-links?

My (possibly wrong) feeling is that IPFS is meant for smaller files, and torrents for bigger collections. So with the example of a package manager, you could download each individual package via IPFS, whereas a torrent would make sense if you wanted to download an archive of them all.

Not to say torrents couldn't work, but it just kinda feels like not the intended use case.

(The above feeling come from reading about IPFS a few times throughout the years and toying with it for a while).

Re: Filecoin Foundation Successfully Deploys IPFS in Space

#150

Post by amelius »

grumbel wrote: post #24
diggan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is also the legal problem that IPFS conflicts with copyright. Redistributing anything is illegal by default I think you might misunderstand how IPFS works, or possibly confuse it with Freenet. When you use IPFS, nothing is automatically distributed, unless they happen to know the hash of the content you've added locally. It's not until someone starts to explicitly request data from you, that you start sharing…

Everything in your local cache is redistributed, meaning every single website you view through IPFS ends up getting potentially redistributed. Can you guarantee that each and every item you view on the Web allows redistribution?

Perhaps it should use the fact that any file A can be written as the XOR of two files B and C, where B and C look like complete noise. If you only host B and another person only hosts C, then there can be no copyright infringements, while you can still reconstruct A by simply XORing the other files together. Of course at the expense of having to store and transfer twice the amount of data.
Post reply on HN