Seems quite promising! I heard it could use more maturing.

    • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Copyright lawyers have already found IPFS. The old internet censorship works fine. IPFS produces a list of IP addresses that host content with a certain hash.

      Download beemovie.mp4 or governmentsecrets.docx, hash it, and you find a list of all IP addresses that currently claim to host a copy. DMCA the lot of them, or go after their uplink through their ISP, and you’ll take down most of the network. If that fails, you can pick out the home users and start your run-of-the-mill copyright lawsuits.

      The concept of IPFS is great, but it’s not uncensorable or private without the ability to run IPFS servers behind anonymization layers like Tor.

    • RunAwayFrog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Besides being overhyped basic tech where way more useful and practical solutions existed for decades (Freenet existed since year 2000 btw, and Tahoe-LAFS since 2007), there is nothing private about IPFS. This is a dangerous message to purport.

      IPFS is as practically useful as NFTs. No wonder the two crowds connected well!

      iroh is an attempt to create a useful and practical IPFS. But none of the bigger practical features is implemented yet. And the design itself doesn’t appear to be finalized. I’m willing to give iroh a chance, although the close proximity to the IPFS crowd doesn’t fill one with confidence.

      • Mubelotix@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You are right, notice the use of future when I talk about privacy. What’s great with IPFS is that it’s based on libp2p. Libp2p makes it easy to add support for any transport protocol you like. If your transport protocol is private (tor, i2p…), then the whole protocol on top of it (ipfs, my search engine) is private. I’m pretty sure it was a choice for them to refuse adding support for private transports, because they don’t want illegal activity on ipfs, thinking it’s too early. But it’s inevitable in the long run

        • RunAwayFrog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is no need to talk about an imaginary version of IPFS. GNUnet already exists. You can add that to the list of actually superior technologies that long predates IPFS.

          As I mentioned, IPFS is nothing but very basic tech that got overhyped to junior/uninformed developers, and crypto scam victims.