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

HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)

blog.neocities.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 227 posts

Re: HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)

#41

Post by c22 »

alwillis wrote: post #28
Semiapies wrote: post #11

Ugh, servers! Except, you're gonna have to have servers unless you've got the entire web backed up on everyone's computer. Otherwise, you don't and can't know how many copies of a page or other file are out there. But who's going to pay for servers to retain random peoples' and companies' web detritus? This whole project exists because that's not feasible in the long term... It's not "crazy", it's pure, thoughtless h…

Because IPFS uses a distributed hash table like Bittorent, you don't have to know where stuff is--that's the problem with the HTTP, which is location addressed. IPFS is content addressed—the hash is the location. You never host anything unless you want to; you don't host random stuff. It's 2017, if you're using Google Docs or an instant messenger program and lose access to the backbone, you can't communicate with som…

But that really only holds true for content that hundreds of thousands of nodes find interesting enough to hold on to. IPFS is definitely a step up in that it allows for more than just the originating party to preserve it, but this isn't too different from http mirroring save for the obvious advantages to discoverability.

Re: HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)

#42

Post by anigbrowl »

IncRnd wrote: post #35
__s wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IPNS isn’t done yet, so if that link doesn’t work, don’t fret. Just know that I will be able to change what that pubkeyhash points to, but the pubkeyhash will always remain the same. When it’s done, it will solve the site updating problem.

That's how these things always work, by saying "it will work one day." If it would work, and the cost benefit ratio were there, people would adopt it quickly. That's what happens with just about everything else.

Mo it isn't. I was trying to get small-medium businesses interested in a thing called email in 1990 and it was a hard sell.

Re: HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)

#43

Post by mgalka »

jlrbuellv wrote: post #18

It's kind of funny that the example link to a "permanent" object still returns a 404 ("ipfs resolve -r /ipns/QmTodvhq9CUS9hH8rirt4YmihxJKZ5tYez8PtDmpWrVMKP: Could not resolve name.") I totally want the web to magically be distributed too, but clearly not even the author is bothering to host their IPFS content anymore...

Funny? Yes. Relevant? No.

The post makes the case for why IPFS should replace HTTP -- has nothing to do with how well the technology works right now in its infancy.

Re: HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)

#44

Post by freshhawk »

Semiapies wrote: post #11

Ugh, servers! Except, you're gonna have to have servers unless you've got the entire web backed up on everyone's computer. Otherwise, you don't and can't know how many copies of a page or other file are out there. But who's going to pay for servers to retain random peoples' and companies' web detritus? This whole project exists because that's not feasible in the long term... It's not "crazy", it's pure, thoughtless h…

Exactly, it's like how bittorrent doesn't work at all.

Re: HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)

#45

Post by emodendroket »

freshhawk wrote: post #44
Semiapies wrote: post #11

Ugh, servers! Except, you're gonna have to have servers unless you've got the entire web backed up on everyone's computer. Otherwise, you don't and can't know how many copies of a page or other file are out there. But who's going to pay for servers to retain random peoples' and companies' web detritus? This whole project exists because that's not feasible in the long term... It's not "crazy", it's pure, thoughtless h…

Exactly, it's like how bittorrent doesn't work at all.

BitTorrent works but it has not supplanted centralized methods of distribution and it doesn't work for all circumstances.

Re: HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)

#46

Post by yeukhon »

So a couple questions even reading this...

1. The availability depends on the number of peers like BitTorrent? If so, and if no seed is available, how does one access the content, esp in the context of an intranet?

2. Any change to how we run infrastructure except not serving HTTP?

Re: HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)

#47

Post by Asdfbla »

alwillis wrote: post #28
Semiapies wrote: post #11

Ugh, servers! Except, you're gonna have to have servers unless you've got the entire web backed up on everyone's computer. Otherwise, you don't and can't know how many copies of a page or other file are out there. But who's going to pay for servers to retain random peoples' and companies' web detritus? This whole project exists because that's not feasible in the long term... It's not "crazy", it's pure, thoughtless h…

Because IPFS uses a distributed hash table like Bittorent, you don't have to know where stuff is--that's the problem with the HTTP, which is location addressed. IPFS is content addressed—the hash is the location. You never host anything unless you want to; you don't host random stuff. It's 2017, if you're using Google Docs or an instant messenger program and lose access to the backbone, you can't communicate with som…

Someone has to have replicated the file though, else it can be lost. Yeah, you still have the hash, but if no one is left that stored the file, what are you gonna do - brute-force search for a preimage of the hash to get your content?

As long as IPFS requires replication to be voluntary on the side of the nodes, the argument of the parent holds.

Re: HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)

#48

Post by hobofan »

dingo_bat wrote: post #31
noam87 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Even assuming all this, a hybrid approach of HTTP + IPFS (or DAT) is still better than what we have now, since IPFS is essentially a worldwide CDN for static files.(Sorry: an inter-planetary one.) - The content-addressing aspect makes it perfect for distributing commonly used libraries. - We already cache all this content locally. What a waste! Why do I have to fetch jQuery from fricking California when it's sittin…

> Why do I have to fetch jQuery from fricking California when it's sitting on my girlfriend's phone in the other room? Because your girlfriend probably values her battery life and data usage? I doubt we'll ever see phones hosting any ipfs content for the reasons.

Funny you should say that. Just hours ago I released an app that helps you pin your most important IPFS hashes to your phone[0]. Works well together with IPFSDroid[1].

Battery usage is definitely noticable, but my phone has a good battery life overall, and IPFS on the phone is a priority for me.

Data usage would be a problem, but I use it only when connected to a portable WIFI hotspot I am carrying with me.

[0]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hobofan.ip...

[1]: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.ligi.ipfsd...

Re: HTTP is obsolete. It's time for the Distributed Web (2015)

#50

Post by alwillis »

Asdfbla wrote: post #47
alwillis wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because IPFS uses a distributed hash table like Bittorent, you don't have to know where stuff is--that's the problem with the HTTP, which is location addressed. IPFS is content addressed—the hash is the location. You never host anything unless you want to; you don't host random stuff. It's 2017, if you're using Google Docs or an instant messenger program and lose access to the backbone, you can't communicate with som…

Someone has to have replicated the file though, else it can be lost. Yeah, you still have the hash, but if no one is left that stored the file, what are you gonna do - brute-force search for a preimage of the hash to get your content? As long as IPFS requires replication to be voluntary on the side of the nodes, the argument of the parent holds.

Did you miss the part regarding Filecoin monetization? If I have content I care about, I can pay to have it hosted by other IPFS nodes.

They certainly have the funding to create a storage market that can rival what passes for distributed storage: https://www.coindesk.com/257-million-filecoin-breaks-time-re...

Post reply on HN