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

IPFS Project Roadmap

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 154 posts

Re: IPFS Project Roadmap

#131

Post by woodandsteel »

I have a question for the IPFS people. I am a non-techy who really likes the IPFS idea and wants to see it succeed.

However, whenever this topic comes up here at HN, we get a bunch of people who say they tried to use it but it was basically unworkable, like too much RAM usage and various sorts of failures. And rarely does anyone respond by saying that it is working just fine for them.

So my question to the IPFS people is, when is it going to get really usable? I am asking for something reasonably specific, like 2 or 3 years, or what? And I am supposing that would mean a different promise/prediction for each main different use case. So how about some answers, not just "We are aware of those problems and are working on them"

Re: IPFS Project Roadmap

#132

Post by [deleted] »

Razengan wrote: post #38
OrgNet wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar powered drone planes would be nice... or maybe even a swarm of satellites will eventually be possible.

I'm picturing something more like bird-like or even moth-like drones, intelligently repositioning themselves to provide the widest coverage. Satellites are too big of a target, and not very transparent; e.g. we wouldn't know if someone went up there and installed some snooping hardware. The same can be said about drones, but with proper swarms the chances of you connected to a compromised drone would be less.

[deleted]

Re: IPFS Project Roadmap

#133

Post by dsswh »

threeme3 wrote: post #81
StavrosK wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IPFS client is such an untunable memory hog that I turn it off whenever I'm not using it (which, of course, defeats the entire purpose). I would be ecstatic if we had something like the old uTorrent, but for IPFS. A nice UI, easy configuration, an ultralight implementation. It would be a dream come true.

Exactly this: such an ultralight, accessible implementation would make it better suitable to run on embedded devices and mobile phones. And since we still live in as fairly disconnected world this is probably an area where IPFS can accelerate.

We live in the world of NATs that effectively prevents any p2p networks.

Re: IPFS Project Roadmap

#134

Post by fwip »

marknadal wrote: post #125
fwip wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a shame that so many P2P advocates - or at least the ones using the stuff built with P2P tech - are very loud alt-right types. I popped on notabug.io just now, and the chat is full of swastikas, racial slurs, and the most up-voted posts are primarily anti-gay misinformation. I see you wrote GUN, which I'm sure was no small feat, and it looks like an impressive piece of technology. How do you feel about your tech…

:( few months ago NAB didn't have this problem. :( The guy actually built a P2P moderation tool (anyone has their own "glasses" that filters based on your policy). notabug.io is suppose to be running a curated homepage (nab.cx not curated) but I think he said it broke a week ago when he was modularizing his code. NAB usually isn't this bad, lot of the people on it are anti-altright, but altrighters certainly can drow…

Thanks for your response. I hope NAB gets better again.

Re: IPFS Project Roadmap

#135

Post by bradleyhb »

StavrosK wrote: post #36
fwip wrote: post #18

"2019 Goal: The most used code and binary Package Managers are powered by IPFS." That's kind of stupid-ambitious for 2019 when another 2019 goal is "a production-ready implementation" and IPFS has been around for 3 years already. This isn't a roadmap, it's a wishlist. And I'm someone who wants to see IPFS succeed.

The IPFS client is such an untunable memory hog that I turn it off whenever I'm not using it (which, of course, defeats the entire purpose). I would be ecstatic if we had something like the old uTorrent, but for IPFS. A nice UI, easy configuration, an ultralight implementation. It would be a dream come true.

When you say nice UI, do you mean a GUI?

Re: IPFS Project Roadmap

#136

Post by sideeffffect »

fwip wrote: post #18

"2019 Goal: The most used code and binary Package Managers are powered by IPFS." That's kind of stupid-ambitious for 2019 when another 2019 goal is "a production-ready implementation" and IPFS has been around for 3 years already. This isn't a roadmap, it's a wishlist. And I'm someone who wants to see IPFS succeed.

also, Fury, the new Scala build tool by Jon Pretty, uses IPFS to distribute builds/build definitions

https://fury.build/

https://github.com/propensive/fury

https://youtu.be/Xti2I2Csww8?t=1620

it seems like people working on package management/distribution related things LOVE the idea of IPFS

Re: IPFS Project Roadmap

#137

Post by StavrosK »

bradleyhb wrote: post #135
StavrosK wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IPFS client is such an untunable memory hog that I turn it off whenever I'm not using it (which, of course, defeats the entire purpose). I would be ecstatic if we had something like the old uTorrent, but for IPFS. A nice UI, easy configuration, an ultralight implementation. It would be a dream come true.

When you say nice UI, do you mean a GUI?

Yes, to make it more accessible.

Re: IPFS Project Roadmap

#138

Post by miguelrochefort »

cortesoft wrote: post #59
miguelrochefort wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data should never be deleted. Ever. Start by accepting that, and everything starts to make sense.

Child porn? Video of you in the bathroom that someone took from a hidden camera? Your stolen financial information?

No. It's unreasonable to expect they could be deleted.

Re: IPFS Project Roadmap

#139

Post by miguelrochefort »

Grustaf wrote: post #114
miguelrochefort wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data should never be deleted. Ever. Start by accepting that, and everything starts to make sense.

That’s just a dogmatic statement, you need to motivate it.

It's unreasonable to expect to be able to delete data that's been released publicly. Any attempt to delete arbitrary data will either fail or involve extreme authoritarian measures.

Once you accept that, you can focus on reducing the output of compromising information, rather than trying to erase it after the fact. Prevention over cure. This will inevitably lead to a society where people do more of what society wants, and less of what society doesn't. This is a good thing.

Also, I feel like we don't collect as much information as we should. Analytics is a lot less comprehensive than it should. Other than CCTVs, real-world analytics is basically non-existent. This greatly inhibits progress in AI/ML.

Re: IPFS Project Roadmap

#140

Post by sideeffffect »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #48

If you want to do package managers, your #1 priority should be Nix. Don't do something more popular where you help less, go with the thing that you can really provide the killer missing feature. Nix + IPFS has been tried before, but what was missing is the Nix-side hierarchical content addressing of large data (not just plans). With the "intensional store" proposal, this should finally happen. Please push it along. D…

there's been some effort

https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/859

Post reply on HN