Live data from Hacker News

IPFS Backed by Decentralized Storage

filebase.com

61–65 of 65 posts

Re: IPFS Backed by Decentralized Storage

#61
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not a fan of Handshake. The auction system is pretty much the worst system you could build for normal (ie: not rich) businesses that want to register their own names. Seriously, who wants to compete against people who have a gazillion HNS that they got for free? Then add in the fact that it’s a judgement proof blockchain and you’ve got a system that’s awesome for squatters, flippers, and rent seekers while being…

Interesting. However: > Seriously, who wants to compete against people who have a gazillion HNS that they got for free? Or you can buy it off of them, just like you do anywhere else if you were too late to buy say, pets.com, nba.eth or .ftx/ which were all 'squatted and flipped' today. No different here and neither system aimed to totally prevent squatters, flippers and rent seekers. Because you cannot and you know t…

> As I said before, nobody can stop that and anyone who has a popular online business knows that.

> Even when you take them down, more typo squatters take its place. It happens everywhere. There will always be typo squatters even after trademark violations, unless you buy the domains off of them.

I disagree with almost everything you wrote, but especially this part. There's absolutely recourse in the current system. It roughly goes webhost > registrar > registry > ICANN. If someone is violating your trademark you can use ICANN's UDRP to file a complaint and ICANN has a process for resolving the dispute.

You can even see the market impact of the UDRP if you pay attention. $5k is often quoted as the rough cost to expect when making a UDRP complaint, so it's not a coincidence that most domainers (aka squatters) sell non-premium domains for $2k-4k.

At the very least the bad actor is going to have to reveal their identity to accept your money or to participate in the UDRP. That alone is enough to deter some of the most egregious behavior.

Re: IPFS Backed by Decentralized Storage

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is already the norm with the current domain registration system, so I'm not sure what your point is. I recently tried to purchase a domain with some version of my name. There is nothing hosted there (domain name lookup fails). I offered them a few grand for it which I thought was reasonable, no response. Would be interested in your solution to this problem if you have one (seriously, I don't know how to solve it).

I don't know what the solution is. But a "pay-to-win" scheme on an irreversible ledger isn't it.

Both current and blockchain solutions are pay to win in the exact same ways. The blockchain solution solves other problems.

If we agree that there's no known solution for the "pay to win" part, I'm not sure what your criticism of this even is?

Re: IPFS Backed by Decentralized Storage

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when you pin it to a service you're paying for. So. A centralized service responsible for keeping your data. How is this different from literally anything else? > it may still be in the network so long as the data is getting active use. "Maybe" makes this essentially useless. > It opens up a whole field of seed and harvest style information flows. It really doesn't. It's literally the same problem that torrents hav…

> "Maybe" makes this essentially useless. Ok, then don't use it!

This is unbelievably dismissive, and also one of the many reasons why IPFS (or any similar tech) will never take off.

Re: IPFS Backed by Decentralized Storage

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what the solution is. But a "pay-to-win" scheme on an irreversible ledger isn't it.

Both current and blockchain solutions are pay to win in the exact same ways. The blockchain solution solves other problems. If we agree that there's no known solution for the "pay to win" part, I'm not sure what your criticism of this even is?

> Both current and blockchain solutions are pay to win in the exact same ways

They don't.

> The blockchain solution solves other problems.

It doesn't. As in there are no problems blockchain solves, period, and it makes most existing problems worse.

> I'm not sure what your criticism of this even is

You want to normalise and incentivise the behaviour. And pretending that by simply appending "blockchain" to it it is okay.

Re: IPFS Backed by Decentralized Storage

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Maybe" makes this essentially useless. Ok, then don't use it!

This is unbelievably dismissive, and also one of the many reasons why IPFS (or any similar tech) will never take off.

>> when you pin it to a service you're paying for. >So. A centralized service responsible for keeping your data. How is this different from literally anything else?

Because in addition to being like anything else, your data has a lifecycle in the network. Even if you as an initial provider of data lose interest in it, the network can hold onto it for their own purposes. The question of what data is important becomes decentralized and democratized. So long as at least 1 person says something is important and is willing to pay the resources to pin it, the data exists and can be utilized by any consumers.

>> it may still be in the network so long as the data is getting active use. >"Maybe" makes this essentially useless.

No, it doesn't. Computer systems are built on a long stack of maybes.

> It really doesn't.

You can't imagine it; it must not exist.

Post reply on HN