IPFS aims to be a distributed storage technology which will avoid storage on insecure centralized databases. XSL Labs introduces you to this revolutionary te...
poVoq
link
5
edit-2
2M

I have become highly skeptical of this when I learned that the plan is basically to have this combined with Filecoin, which in turn (once you look a bit closer at it) turns out to be a really terrible idea.

@k_o_t
admin
link
32M

iirc ipfs libraries are decoupled from filecoin, you can use whatever implementation in whatever language, and never even know filecoin existed

also, why do you think fc is a bad idea?

poVoq
link
4
edit-2
2M

For now, but it is developed AFAIK by the same team with plans to couple it.

Filecoin has insane hardware requirements and (if I recall correctly) a storage overhead of at least a factor of 100 meaning it is the same really wasteful and environmentally destructive shit as Bitcoin, maybe even worse…

@null_radix
link
52M

Ipfs has always had a strongly layered philosophy. The team believes in modular software architects. They will never be coupled. Just look at their stack, heck they even made a protocol for self decribing hashes. Also libp2p is quite nice.

poVoq
link
3
edit-2
2M

Google has always had a strongly non-evil philosophy. The team believes in the open web. They will never go against that. Just look at their stack, heck they even made an open-source mobile OS. Also the search engine is quite nice.

FTFY ;)

@null_radix
link
2
edit-2
2M

yeah the diffence is that layered protocols would be intrinsically difficult to inject coupling. Protocol labs help create protocols, but its out of their hands now. For example polkadot uses libp2p and also did most of the rust implementation. Also many Ethereum project use lib2p2 and IPFS (although eth use DEVp2p for it networking) If protocol labs wanted to add something to the protocol that was helped just filecoin that would go against libp2p’s largest consumers and they would just fork the protocol anyways. Protocol lab’s approach is to be as plurilistic as possible so they can get the largest mindshare of developers using and working on the protocols, then eventually the protocols becomes self sustaining through the projects that are built on them.

@k_o_t
admin
link
22M

team with plans to couple it

that’s conserning ngl, do you know of any source?

@k_o_t
admin
link
22M

that’s just protocol labs offering their own hosting, there’s nothing preventing you from not using it, no?

poVoq
link
32M

Uhmm… sure. But you do understand that if the company developing IPFS has their own Filecoin backed storage system based on a IPFS/filecoin hybrid that their incentives are not exactly aligned with a user that wants to only use IPFS…

@k_o_t
admin
link
42M

they are offering it for free in order to incentivise more developers to adopt it, more people using it only means they need to pay more for hosting

plus, the value of ipfs is largely dependent on its flexibility, locking everyone to use filecoin would probably be not only technically impossible (many libraries are maintained by people other than protocol labs), but also weird from their side, as there is a multitude of applications for ipfs other than redundant bulk storage

obviously, there’s no way to know what’s going to happen, but in my opinion this is extremely unlikely: watching all the interviews with the people behind ipfs I get a strong feeling that these people are actually trying to do something good, and this is not simply a cash-grab operation

poVoq
link
2
edit-2
2M

More then 200 million US $ of VC funding would like a word with you…

@k_o_t
admin
link
32M

i don’t pretend to understand investing, but I think there’s no reason why people who bought filecoil would not be able to get a return on investment if the value of filecoin increases, after all, filecoin offers genuine utility and a very concrete service, and not some theoretical promise: trying to squeese some money out of it very fast would be a relatively small amount compared to what a potentially enormous data storage network be worth in the future

and in any case, do VCs who bought pre-sale tokens have any say in the way the company that develops it is run? they bought tokens, not company shares i think… like i literally don’t know, do they have any way to influence them?

poVoq
link
3
edit-2
2M

Don’t be fooled by this… their “ICO” was exclusive to high profile “accredited investors” and before that they pre-sold coins for another 50 million US $ to an exclusive “advisor” group that includes some of the worst venture capital firms in existence.

@k_o_t
admin
link
32M

for sure, I didn’t intend to convey that I’m not skeptical of filecoin in any way, there was a lot of questionable stuff along the way

but imo it’s still unlikely, but even if they somehow figure out a way to steer an organization that they in theory should not be able to influence into a decision only with short term profit in mind…

…you can just fork all their code, it’s all open source after all, plus, the idea and mechanism behind ipfs are as public as any information can be, and as it’s a pretty cool technology, even if all the progress is by some incredible concidence lost, it will be reimplemented from scratch by someone

but I understand your concern now

flbn
link
52M

the docs are actually pretty good but some of the concepts go over my head. i wish there was more content on youtube and blogs though. most content surrounding ipfs rn are talks about the ecosystem and existing projects.

@roastpotatothief
link
4
edit-2
2M

iirc,

content is distributed. so if your neighbour read aljazeera this morning, your computer doesn’t have to fetch to from thousands of miles away. this reduces network traffic load, and load on aljazeera’s servers. it makes they internet more scalable.

content is hashed, so if it changes, it gets a new hash. so you can search for today’s version of the newspaper, or you can search for last week’s version, because they have different addresses/hashes. nothing us ever lost or deleted irretrevably.

i think that’s the important part, but there are other big improvements that are built in, things people didn’t think of in the 1960 when they developed the internet protocols, but we now realise are needed.

Dessalines
admin
link
22M

Has anyone done a good breakdown of torrents vs IPFS?

@null_radix
link
32M

I think the major difference is that IPFS uses a single DHT whereas torrents have a DHT (or tracker) per torrent. This mean that if there are shared chunks between media, then they will be deduplicated. The downside to this is that you have a single massive DHT, so lookups can be slower (and were very, very slow early on, but the situation is improving).

The other difference is that ipfs is built with a very modular stack. Networking, Self describing hash, ect, which should allow for reuse else where. IPFS is also very general, you can use different hash functions and chunking methods when importing data. This allows for existing hashed to be imported into ipfs (like a git repo, or a blockchain like bitcoin) and shared a crossed the network. But that modularity and generality can also come at a price of performance, so there are trade-offs.

@tracyspcy
link
12M

they can’t be the future of data storage until they make an easy way to configure $IPFS_PATH in go-ipfs before initialization…

Subscribe to see more stories about technology on your homepage


  • 0 users online
  • 16 users / day
  • 43 users / week
  • 132 users / month
  • 464 users / 6 months
  • 3.63K subscribers
  • 1.77K Posts
  • 4.81K Comments
  • Modlog