51–60 of 61 posts
Yay. I last used ipfs for leeching abandonware around November. Although it had a tough time getting started and it would occasionally freeze up for several minutes, it worked well when it worked. It's seems to be getting better from when I first tried it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought that ipfs is about high availability, fault tolerance, including some resistance against addressed censorship. It never looked like an anonymizing tool to me; did anybody advertise it as such?
Well to be fair it would be quite imprudent to have a file system where everyone can see what everyone is doing. In particular it's pointless to be able to circumvent censorship if you can't do so anonymously.
Would be curious to know how using IPFS for internal container distribution compares to using BitTorrent. IIRC BitTorrent has found similar uses in the past. Also, how well does BitSwap work when the underlying network is congested? Do IPFS nodes do any kind of congestion control?
You can't update a torrent, if the content changes you have to create a new one. IPNS helps with that. And you can't share pieces across different torrents, if some still have the old torrent, they share it separately from the new one even if the differences are minimal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that was a dig at ipfs's issues with real world usage where a lot of traffic until recently was wasted on metadata and every node used lots of bandwidth to gossip. Meanwhile the actual throughout on a non-tuned node was not great at all.
Has this changed now?
There was also a change later which turned off nodes being the middleman by default, but not sure which version.
It's supposed to be much better these days, but I haven't tried it again in a few months.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has this changed now?
I just realised that "recently" happened at the end of 2018 https://blog.ipfs.io/53-go-ipfs-0-4-18/ - oops. There was also a change later which turned off nodes being the middleman by default, but not sure which version. It's supposed to be much better these days, but I haven't tried it again in a few months.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IPNS is a system that runs on top of IPFS. You do not need IPNS to use IPFS.
That's technically correct, but in practice the term "IPFS" is commonly used to refer to both ipfs and its optional feature ipns.
Would be curious to know how using IPFS for internal container distribution compares to using BitTorrent. IIRC BitTorrent has found similar uses in the past. Also, how well does BitSwap work when the underlying network is congested? Do IPFS nodes do any kind of congestion control?
You can't update a torrent, if the content changes you have to create a new one. IPNS helps with that. And you can't share pieces across different torrents, if some still have the old torrent, they share it separately from the new one even if the differences are minimal.
Would be curious to know how using IPFS for internal container distribution compares to using BitTorrent. IIRC BitTorrent has found similar uses in the past. Also, how well does BitSwap work when the underlying network is congested? Do IPFS nodes do any kind of congestion control?
You can't update a torrent, if the content changes you have to create a new one. IPNS helps with that. And you can't share pieces across different torrents, if some still have the old torrent, they share it separately from the new one even if the differences are minimal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And you can't share pieces across different torrents So make each layer an own torrent?
That's still not great. Imagine the only difference between two versions of the layer is that you updated a single jar in a 200MB app bundle. The effective difference could be a few tens of blocks, but you still need to redownload the whole thing. If we can manage the assignment/padding to match ipfs fragments, that could result in a massive saving.
On top of that, most of them should already be able to understand that certain files already exist; but it seems like it’s more of a file-level feature at this point rather than block-level.
Is there something I am misunderstanding?