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

IPFS Maintainers Winding Down

ipshipyard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 226 posts

Re: IPFS Maintainers Winding Down

#141

Post by jubilanti »

momack2 wrote: post #119

The post here is pretty confusing (so no blame to anyone who reads this as "IPFS the project" shutting down instead of just a single maintainer team, it's totally misleading) - but this is actually just a sunset announcement for _Shipyard_ - one of many IPFS implementation maintainers. *The IPFS Project is not sunsetting or shutting down* - just switching to individual maintainer grants instead of centralized impleme…

@dang yes, and title is editorialized, the real one is "The end of IPFS at Shipyard" which is more informative

It's still a a real loss, those are widely used products, but the signal that Protocol Labs is sending about IPFS in defunding this might be even worse for the ecosystem. Cloudflare, Brave, and now Protocol Labs have abandoned it.

Re: IPFS Maintainers Winding Down

#142

Post by fc417fc802 »

rhodey wrote: post #7
toomuchtodo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this very similar to IPv4 and IPv6, and adoption. Non content addressable URL addressing simply is "good enough" for most use cases, and bittorrent is "good enough" for serving content durably and somewhat in a content addressable manner (file hashes, magnet torrents, immutable torrents). Do we need IPFS URLs? It doesn't appear so, it seems like a solution seeking a problem. IPFS gateways will always be a targe…

I think something like IPFS is definitely needed. There is nothing stopping you from distributing a webapp on bittorrent but you'll also need to add a README for instructions on how to run the webapp on localhost so a browser can render it. So thats not something that any non-technical user wants to do.

Arguably that's a browser shortcoming that applies equally to IPFS (as well as all the other "alternative" internet protocols). (But yes I realize IPFS is a much better fit for the purpose when you dig into the details.)

Re: IPFS Maintainers Winding Down

#143

Post by nailer »

jubilanti wrote: post #141
momack2 wrote: post #119

The post here is pretty confusing (so no blame to anyone who reads this as "IPFS the project" shutting down instead of just a single maintainer team, it's totally misleading) - but this is actually just a sunset announcement for _Shipyard_ - one of many IPFS implementation maintainers. *The IPFS Project is not sunsetting or shutting down* - just switching to individual maintainer grants instead of centralized impleme…

@dang yes, and title is editorialized, the real one is "The end of IPFS at Shipyard" which is more informative It's still a a real loss, those are widely used products, but the signal that Protocol Labs is sending about IPFS in defunding this might be even worse for the ecosystem. Cloudflare, Brave, and now Protocol Labs have abandoned it.

This is worth a flag. IPFS no longer having mantainers is VERY far from one company not supporting IPFS anymore.

Re: IPFS Maintainers Winding Down

#145

Post by fwip »

hiccuphippo wrote: post #98
haunter wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See I thought if IPFS was picked up by the piracy scene (some bigger private trackers for example) then it probably would have been more successful. Alas I haven't seen it outside of libgen and even there I thought it was a backup option only.

I always thought it could be the evolution of Bittorrent: updatable torrents (with IPNS), peers sharing files from different "bundles" as long as the bits match. The problem was that there was no good client for it that was better than current torrent clients. When I tested it you had to keep a duplicate of the files in the ipfs cache directory and the client was CLI based which would alienate most users. There's pro…

It was also pretty slow (download rate wise), even if the destination and source node had a good link between them. I think the protocol had a lot of back-and-forth chatter, requesting blocks a few a time.

Re: IPFS Maintainers Winding Down

#146

Post by ianopolous »

momack2 wrote: post #128
erlend_sh wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the best thing to have come out of IPFS is DASL, used in AT protocol: https://dasl.ing/

Love DASL (funded by IPFS too)! Iroh also meets the DASL spec ( https://dasl.ing/bdasl.html ). A great bridging opportunity for agents to build interop between many different content addressed systems!

Yep, and Peergos also chose the same subset as DASL.

Re: IPFS Maintainers Winding Down

#147

Post by fc417fc802 »

QuantumNomad_ wrote: post #114
scirob wrote: post #65

I tried to build a few non crypto decentralized apps. The killer was reliable always deliverability inside the browser. https://inbrowser.link/ was a huge jump in utility but came to late the ipfs.js just never worked consistently. In the end the only way to get good XP for yours users was that you provider the IPFS to http gateway for all content but then whats the point its just decentralization theater. I remember…

> In the end the only way to get good XP for yours users was that you provider the IPFS to http gateway for all content but then whats the point its just decentralization theater. I gave my static photo album website image files paths that consisted of /ipfs/ as directory name and ipfs hash as file name. Brave browser was able to figure out that this meant they were available on IPFS, and asked me if i wanted to load…

I wonder if (in theory) it wouldn't make more sense to address this sort of thing at the system resolver level rather than in the browser, the way tor does.

Re: IPFS Maintainers Winding Down

#148

Post by fc417fc802 »

ktm5j wrote: post #134
JuniperMesos wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've run into a lot of Google forms for projects that do in fact require me to log in with a Google account in order to submit, which I think might be related to Google detecting that I'm using a VPN and treating the submission as higher-risk. I just have this reflexive assumption that if something is presenting me with a Google form, it's not gonna work unless I log into a Google account on my local machine. Which i…

It's not their job to cater to your nitpicking. Even if this Google form didn't work over a VPN (which it totally does), you're capable of turning the VPN off if you really want to submit feedback. But it doesn't even sound like you have any feedback, so what's your problem?

I think it's a perfectly valid complaint about the ecosystem at large. Not a criticism of the individuals or of this specific case to be clear, but a broader observation that this isn't how things ought to be according to a certain set of ideals and the question then of why we keep seeing it over and over. Clearly there's some sort of systemic shortcoming that applies to the entire ecosystem.

Re: IPFS Maintainers Winding Down

#149

Post by iand »

jubilanti wrote: post #141
momack2 wrote: post #119

The post here is pretty confusing (so no blame to anyone who reads this as "IPFS the project" shutting down instead of just a single maintainer team, it's totally misleading) - but this is actually just a sunset announcement for _Shipyard_ - one of many IPFS implementation maintainers. *The IPFS Project is not sunsetting or shutting down* - just switching to individual maintainer grants instead of centralized impleme…

@dang yes, and title is editorialized, the real one is "The end of IPFS at Shipyard" which is more informative It's still a a real loss, those are widely used products, but the signal that Protocol Labs is sending about IPFS in defunding this might be even worse for the ecosystem. Cloudflare, Brave, and now Protocol Labs have abandoned it.

Except no-one knows what shipyard is and it could more easily be mistaken for the end of IPFS.

Maintainers of IPFS are winding down is much more informative for those not in the space.

Re: IPFS Maintainers Winding Down

#150

Post by SXX »

bitwize wrote: post #138
virgil_disgr4ce wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

please define "authentic activity" and "inauthentic activity"

Legitimate. Legal. IPFS, Freenet, and experiments like that mainly serve as a place for people to store and distribute pirated copyrighted material, child porn, hit lists, terrorism manifestos and plans, and the like. Scratch a libertarian and, nine times out of ten, you'll find someone who advocates for no or minimal government because they want to do something the government legitimately bars them from doing. Scrat…

Your local computer hard drive can also be used to store all of the above. Are you also okay to make it scannable by anyone?

Worse you can store child porn as paper pictures in your house and can privately communicate in there with other unknown people and mignt even be do something illegal there. Do you want to install some police security camera in your toilet?

Oh, and in some countries being LGBTQ+ person or political activist or women right activist is illegal and will land you to execution on chop chop square. Should we also let all the governments find these people too?

Post reply on HN