/ipfs/ - IPFS Thread #2

Well, considering the popularity of public BitTorrent trackers, I have this eerie suspicion that most people are okay with this.

I have judged.

You are right they clearly don't know what they are doing. They should have just written it ONLY in javascript. Then they could just use NodeJS on the backend having halving their work.

You're the same fag that derailed the last thread. You obviously have an ulterior motive since nobody can naturally be this retarded. You're just slapping together a bunch of shitposting vocabulary without even knowing how to apply it correctly in context.
Who hired you to try to shut IPFS threads down?

IPFS can have private swarms.

Bullshit no it cant. Their solution to "private swarms" is configure your node bootstrap list to only have nodes you like and then hope no one else connects. There is no authentication or particular support for it or anything. And if you do do that you cant also use IPFS for public files.

No way anyone could actually be against a shitty meme software written in javascript and go (((Google))) that has the development pace of a snail still missing basic features because the devs are money grubbing on other projects.

I agree. Point me to a better solution which contains the same functionality, then. Until that happens I will continue to use IPFS.

It is harmful software that solves nothing. It has not a single use case. You don't use it. You don't store files on it. No one does.

Point out the specific deficiencies of IPFS. Point out a better alternative as well.

Attached: 1b250367a21584b774735f7efabb25cc88e9c7c68185c31a47228d9f46f2d67c.png (215x328, 42.95K)

Did that already.
Torrents

░░░░░░▒▒▓▒▒▓▒▓▒▒▒█████████████████████████████████████████████▓▓▓▓
░░░░░░▒▓▒▓█▓▒▒▓▒▓██████████████████████████████████████████████▓▓▓ >muh private file sharing
░░░░░▒▓▒██▓▒▒██▓▓██████████████▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓████████████████▓▓ IPFS is for content distribution. If you don't want it
░░░░▒▒▓███▒▓█████████████████████████████████▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓██████▓▓ to be public, don't bother using IPFS. Use SFTP or
░░░▒▓██▓█▓▓█████████████▒██████████████████████████████▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓ something like that.
░░▒███▒████████████████▒▒▓████████████████████████████████████▓▓▓▓
░▒▒█▓▒███████████████▓▒░░▒████████████▓▓████████████████████████▓▓ >shitty meme software written in javascript and go (((Google)))
▒▒██▒▒███████████▒██▒░░░░▓████████████▒▓█████▒██████████████████▓▓ IPFS is a protocol. As long as the protocol is implemented
▒▒█▒▒▓██████████░██░░░░░░░░██████████▒▒░████░▒▓██████████████████▓ correctly, I don't give a shit about what language it is
▒█▓▒▒██████████░▒▒░░░░░░░░░▓████████▒▒░░▓██▒░▒▓██████████████████▓ written in unless I have to write code which interfaces with
▒█▒▒▒█████████░░░░████████░░███████▒▒░░░░██░░░░▓█████████████████▓ it. Google has nothing to do with IPFS.
▒█▒▒▓████████▓░░░░██████░░░░▒█████▓░░▒▒███████▓▒█████████████████▓
▒█▒▒█████████▒░░░░█████▓░░░░░▓████░░░░░██████░░░▓███████████████▓▓ Torrents don't have content-addressability. Webpages can't be
▒▓▒▒█████████░░░░░█████▒░░░░░░███░░░░░▒██████░░░▓███████████████▓▓ conveniently hosted on a torrent. Torrents reveal your IP
▓▓▒▒▓████████░░░░░▓██▓█░░░░░░░░▓▒░░░░░▒█████▓░░░████████████████▓▓ to everyone who is uploading or downloading from you.
▒▒▒▒▒████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒█████░░░░████████▒░██████▓▓
▒▓▒▒▒▓███████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██████▓█▒░██████▓▓
▒▓▒▒▒▒▓██████▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒██████▒█▓▒██████▓▓
▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▓█▓████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓██████▒░████████▓▓
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█▒█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓█████▒▒█████████▓▓
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒██████▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓████████████████▓▓
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓███████▓░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░█████████████████▓▓
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓██████████▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓███████████████████▓▓
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓████████████████▓▒░░░░░░░░░▒▓████████████████████████▓▓
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓██████████████████▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒███████████████████████████▓▓
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓█████████████████▒▒▓▓▒▓▒▒▒▒▓████████████████████████▓▓▓
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓██████████████▓▓█▓▓███▓▓▒▒▓▓▓▓██████████████████████▓▓▓
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████████▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓█████████████▓▓▓▓███████████████████▓▓▓
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█████▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████████▓█▓█▒▒▒▒█████████████████▓▓▓

You have no idea how torrents work. Thats what a magnet link does for the DHT.
We live in a society
Oh shit I should only use this tool if I want to share it with everyone! Fuck sharing among friends or using it in a company. Really this lack of a basic feature is a good thing.
I can use I2P and shit with torrents. Not with IPFS.
I'm sure their javascript is perfect

Attached: DZZKxxSUMAAzDGF.jpg (610x349, 29.72K)

...

Magnet links contain the hash of the torrent file itself, not the actual contents of the torrent.
But webtorrent is javascript and according to you javascript is bad. Serving IPFS over the web doesn't require the use of any javascript anywhere.
Yes.
Actually you can use IPFS to share private information. Just be sure to encrypt it first.
You can use IPFS through tor, I believe.
Use the Go implementation then.

Attached: 9a4f9c230d8f17b04d3aa6ac23d23de6cddaf8b9e741c32d8d629b5c93e9e824.png (432x429, 237.37K)

Why the fuck do you think that is a response. You said:
That is exactly what a magnet is.
Or they could implement basic access controls. Having to encrypt everything would be a massive PITA making the whole easy filesystem part worthless.
Its been "in development" for years.
Yep, thats why I don't use it or any of the web shit.

Attached: DZgsLTVVMAEtvjM.jpg (960x960, 54.34K)

The magnet allows you to address the .torrent file. It does not allow you to address the content (i.e. what you want to download), whereas IPFS does.
And how are they going to do that? How are they going to identify who has access to the file besides by using a password? If they did that you might as well use encryption from outside IPFS, which is simpler and more secure.
You can use IPFS gateway through a hidden service. However, yes it is true that the IPFS daemon itself can't be run through Tor without deanonymization.
This is still better than torrents, which can't be run through Tor at all.
The language being invented by Google isn't a reason not to use all software programmed in it. It's a compiled language so it's all the same in the end.
You can't use webtorrent, but you can use IPFS (through the gateway) without using any javascript.

Again this is just wrong.
Via the node key they already generate for authentication purposes. Or a password.

You've fucking run out of arguments now.
so they would need to send me a long ass public key, instead of telling them a simple password? nice "solution" you got there.
You can download stuff from IPFS through tor. This is a fact and you can't ignore that. That is already better than torrents.
Now you've run out of things to say. The Go compiler is free software. Many people from non-google backgrounds work on it. The fact that the best implementation of IPFS is written in Go doesn't affect you in any way whatsoever, unless you are working on the code, because it's a compiled language which generates static executables.

Nice try anime poster. He cries out as he strikes you.
Nice way to cut off that quote

Sorry I didn't read properly.
Either way, you are proposing a "solution" which is identical to mine, except that yours requires the introcucktion of additional code to the IPFS daemon. GPG symmetric encryption is very easy to use and if you can't figure it out you should read the fucking man pages.
It's not ideal, I agree. Point out a better alternative.
If it's proprietary software, I won't trust it until someone has evidence to the contrary.
If it's free software, I will trust it until someone has evidence to the contrary. I'm not going to explain why this is the case; you should know already.
If it is a compilable language generating statically linked binaries, then no. Clearly you don't work on the code, so it doesn't matter to you.

Attached: 7f30ac24540297d731bbab8296f9a563a35ddcfa64e870a72f83db0946d61a4f.jpg (960x540, 37.47K)

The FS part of IPFS would be useless then. I'm supposed to just be able to DL a file and have it work. Not to have to decrypt and copy it somewhere else. Total waste.
Torrents.
Well thats retarded.
I suppose if I buy a car and its made of inferior steel that does not matter to me either. I don't build cars after all.

Are you too lazy to run gpg --decrypt and type the password?
Torrents don't work through Tor, autismo. IPFS doesn't either, but at least you can download something from IPFS through Tor, whereas you can't do that with torrents.
No, it's not. You will have to explain how the hundreds of contributors to the Go programming language, many of whom do not work at Google, are all engaged in secret activities to insert botnet into the code without it being hilariously easy to notice.
The material of a car is not comparable to the programming language something is written in. If a car is made of bad steel, you die. If something is written in a bad programming language, you get a headache when trying to read and write the code.
Point out a serious security bug in go-ipfs which was caused explicitly by its choice of programming language.

Attached: 3eef226ef601486308505cfb71540afe5697a58cf62c938a989103cf979c03ff.jpg (1280x720, 125.69K)

>Are you too lazy to run gpg --decrypt and type the password?
With IPFS i'm supposed to open a file on my file system and its supposed to fetch from the network and open automatically. So yes.
No user I can connect to a server through tor and download my torrents. Same thing as IPFS. Also torrents work through I2P a network superior to tor.
user its a bad language. Its not backdoor-ed (I think).
Yes of course nothing could possibly happen when someone fucks up a program. It could not delete all my files, allow remote code execution, leak my key, etc.
In literally any language retards are always like "Muh bad programmer muh error muh blah blah". C fags do this all the time.

You still have to enter a password with your shitty solution of including encryption/decryption code into the IPFS daemon.
I don't believe this is the case, unless you operate some server somewhere which you torrent from and then transfer the files to your torified computer. Actually torrenting through the tor network, while possible, deanonymizes you in the same way as using IPFS over tor does.
Find a security bug. Go ahead, find a security bug which was caused by it being written in Go. I believe Go is more "memory safe" than C, and you're using (either directly or indirectly) many C programs right now (and trusting them with private data) without screeching autistically about them.

Yes I agree passwords are a bad idea. I don't know why you thought that was good. Better to just use the public
Yes thats what IPFS does.
user i'm not going to go audit a project for you.
There are few things worse for memory safety than C.

*Public key system

I can enter that in the daemon in one command and then get access to the whole repository that is being hosted. Much different than a manual PGP layer.

What keys are you talking about? If you're talking about the autogenerated IPFS key then it would be necessary to acquire the public keys of everyone who you want to share files with. This is more inconvenient than typing in a password, ONCE, when you download the file, and then storing it normally on your own hard disk.
Nice argument
Not if you program properly. Anyway, as I said, you aren't complaining about the multitude of C programs you (either directly or indirectly) depend on for handing your sensitive information, and instead choose to sperg out over something being written in Go because "MUH GOOGLE REEEEE".

No you can't you imbecile. Passing a password in as part of argv[] is highly insecure. And if you don't there is no difference to using gpg.

Attached: 6327d07446c54cf14fe2c08b7202e08c12e1cb1a1ee5c116d5cdf52c34a41cf8.jpg (508x493, 41.58K)

Yes user this is a basic property of access control.
It totally breaks the convenience of the whole system.
Its not an argument. I am not your personal auditor.
You can say that about literally anything. This logic has done untold amount of damage.
Not in this thread.
user typing a password into a CLI is fine.
With GPG I have to go manually decrypt everything and then copy it to a different directory. Compared to IPFS now where I just open it and it downloads and thats that.

I hope the (((IPFS))) devs, are paying you a bunch of their scam coin. The money you make from this shilling may counterbalance the utter lack of features their system has.

top kek

Attached: 1a6b6841dbc6afb3c5e7da3529dd2c7f9169f24f7da342ada906e207d485f4e7.jpg (744x1049, 101.83K)

Nice try IPFS shill. After having all your points debunked you keep on posting.

Attached: DWb-NthWAAABUAA.jpg (707x531, 60.03K)

It's true, though. Programming in C is perfectly fine. However, if dealing with anything remotely related to security, you need to test your program thoroughly. If the programmer is willing to do that, there is no problem with C programming.
Which is exactly what you do when you use gpg. You were suggesting that the password be included into argv[] i.e. as an argument to the ipfs command; this is not fine for a variety of reasons.
Yeah, at the expense of additional, unnecessary complexity which also decreases the level of security. Go back to wangblows you giant faggot.

Attached: f7a470110fc6dbdda52ca1695d533d08dcec5f6828ee39e85b9e90917b4e935b.png (650x918, 205.98K)

Go on, sperg out some more :-)

Attached: 2e5e63f6c0f01864fd11bf77db1b0fb33bee8223bcc4ed08cf6c5cec885a6f27.png (603x953 535.97 KB, 83.78K)

Yes user I have no doubt you can build a house with duct tape and broken glass. I have no doubt you can program a working program by entering it one bit at a time in raw assembly. ERROR RATES ARE A THING.
No its totally different. If use the CLI and set the credentials in IPFS and then IPFS handles all the fetching and decryption with the interaction layer staying the same.
No you would type "IPFS credentials" and then it would ask you for them or something like that on the CLI.
Yes user basic authentication is unnecessary complexity. The issue is not that you have to decrypt files with GPG, the problem is that it totally breaks the interface.

Attached: Db6M6xcUwAAhzko.jpg (624x1024, 86.83K)

This strays from my point. My original argument was that it doesn't matter what programming language something is written in if you aren't going to be contributing to the code. As long as they test their program appropriately and ensure its security.
IPFS isn't supposed to be especially for distributing files to an authenticated group of people. IPFS is the "permanent web", not a way to share files with specific people by way of the protocol itself. If you want to share files with specific people, you use GPG. Does TCP, for example, include a method to share files only with specific people? No. Encryption is built on top of a general web protocol, not shoehorned inside because "muh convenience".

Attached: f33dc4cfab786e22997f7c5aa4b28ef6e41660cc446e297219b0771df5e64a04.png (480x587, 239.07K)

Which is obviously wrong for the reasons pointed out.
user encryption happens BELOW HTTP FTP and all that other shit. It should happen below the IPFS layer all teh same.

If you're saying that is to IPFS what SSL is to HTTP, it's an acceptable idea -- but the (((Certificate Authorities))) have to go. If you can devise a scheme which doesn't use any centralized method of certifying peers and making sure that there are no impostors, go ahead. (pro tip: no such solution is currently in wide use, so it might be a little difficult)

Attached: eb9be03381c5c557b4d501d5aea0771dc5254a67e92f7294bb3795dc011e8679.png (500x746, 320.68K)

user its easy. Its called THE EXISTING KEYS NODES HAVE, and passwords. Done.

>but the (((Certificate Authorities)))
Woah user i'm not adding a human readable name system here. Totally different problem. I don't need to certify a name I just go get they password from them.

You have a good point. I agree with that. Do torrents have this kind of functionality?

Attached: 428e1569942e46f5ec5b12a32c797c14ff280a3e83a93d1f23691446af8741de.png (800x1104, 813.49K)

Yes, private trackers. You can have an authentication server (that works ever tor / I2P) and then use the torrent part normally.

That is more complex than using GPG.

Attached: ab39a5a585fd1151ee25712d8e1618bf91b0b0327c1d179f156f32d03a3776e2.jpg (850x1200, 383.74K)

I agree torrents are annoying for this. SyncThing and BitTorrentSync (proprietary dont use) use the torrent protocol and do this very nicely though.

(((IPFS)))
LOL fucking thread got BTFO again.

Attached: 559365a1969017e6b9b5b221c48a7722110b64a539cd26a08910436725761742.png (2000x2000, 1.37M)

Keep shilling for your meme software that literally nobody on this board but you thinks is anything worth shits.

▒████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▒▒▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒░▒░▓▒▒▒▒░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▓▒▒▓█▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▓▒▒▓▒▓▓▓▓▒▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒░▒▒▒▒▒░░▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒█▓▓▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▒▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▓░░░░▒░▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒███▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒░▓▒▒▒▒▒▒░░▓▓▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▒▓▓▓▒▓▓▓▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▓▓██████████▓▒▒▒░░░█▒▒▒▒▒░▒▒▓▓▓█▒▓▓▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒░▒░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░▒▒▓▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒█▓▒▒▒▒▒██████████▓▒▒▒▓░░▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒░▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▓▒▓▓▓▒▒▓▓▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▓▓▒░░░▒█▓███████████▓▒░░░▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▓▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒░░░░░▒▒▓▓▒▓▒▒▓▒▓▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒░░░░░░▒▓▓██▓▓██▓▒▓█░░░▒▒░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▓▓▓▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒░░░░▒█▓░▒▒▒▓▓▓█░░░░░░░▒░░▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▒▒▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▓▓▒▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▓▓▒▒░░░░░░░░░▓▓▒▓▓░░░░░░░░▒░░▒▓▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█▒▒▓█▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▓▓▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▓▓▓▒▓▒▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒░░░▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓█▒▒▒▒▓▒▓▓▒▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▒▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▓▓▓▒▓▒▒▒▓▒▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓██████▓▒▒▒▓▒▓▓▓▒▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▓▓▓▒▓█████▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓██████▓▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░██████████▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▓▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓███████▓▓▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒░▒░▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒░▒▒▒░░░▓▓███▓█████▓▒▓▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒████████▓▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒░▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒░░░░░░░░░▓▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▓█░▒██▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒███████▒▓▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒░░▒░░▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▒░░░░░░░░░░▒▓▒▒▒▓▓▒░░▒▓█▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██████▓▓▓▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▓░░░▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓░░░░░░▓█▓▒▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█████▓▓▓▓▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▒▓▒▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓█▓▓▓▒▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▓▒▓▓▓▓█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒█▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▓▓▒▒▒▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▓▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒░░░░░░░░░▒░▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓▓▒▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▓▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒░░▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒░▓▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▓▒▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒░░▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▓▒▓▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▓▒▓▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▓▓▓▒▓▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░░░░▒▓░░░░▒▒▓▒▒░░░░░░░▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█▓▓▓▓▒▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░▓░░░░░▓▓▒░░░░░░░▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓▒░░░░▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█▓▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒░░░░░░░▒▓░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▒▓▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓█▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓█▓▓▓▓▒░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▒▒░░░░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓

user thats not me

The people with actual brains actually had arguments against your shitty meme protocol, unlike your "NOOOOOOOOOOOO STOP HATING ON IT NOOOOOOOOOOO WAAAAAAAAAA :'("

What kind of retarded /g/ happening brought you faggots here?

0.000000000002 Filecoin has been placed into your account

I wonder why they're derailing the threads now of all times. We've had peaceful IPFS threads for three years until now.

Attached: __adam_jensen_and_suiseiseki_deus_ex_deus_ex_human_revolution_and_rozen_maiden_drawn_by_doyora__e983d7242451a53288b278c5f3df2003.jpg (2208x3080, 2.07M)

Yeah, I wonder why people are JUST NOW catching on to the (((IPFS))) scam. Controlled opposition at its finest.

We all know you're a FUD troll but why put IPFS in echos? What's the scam? If you're salty about the $252 million they raised for Filecoin why bitch about it now? Why didn't you whine about their ICO when it happened last year? Only (((accredited investors))) could buy in but that has no impact on the open source protocol or implementations they're coding. They outright say everything is still in heavy development and is not production ready. They're in the process of having the code audited.

WTF is going on in this thread? Why are shills suddenly coming out of the woodwork against IPFS of all things? Did it recently hit some milestone or something?

Attached: dae0219741397f8509ea83f1153dd911cb4ecb7bf70fcf3654cee5cd5b279ea2.png (464x430, 97.3K)

0.000031 Filecoins have been put into your account.

19 Israeli New Shekels are headed your way

Attached: 97c669001eec16dd724eccca1f44864e69939261806f3314e706ea011dafe7ba-tech.jpg (250x250, 13.95K)

Nigger if you're going to be a shill at least tell me what FUD you're slinging. You keep rambling about bitcoin so link me to something to prove your point.

So I recently claimed the /ipfs/ board. There probably isn't enough of a community or interest on here at the moment to warrant a board, but hopefully it can be used as a place for anons to post ipfs related content or share whatever they're working on.
>>>/ipfs/
Ultimately, I think an ipfschan would be pretty cool, so I'm gonna do some research on that and post progress on the board. If anyone has any ideas or suggestions, I'm all ears.

Personally I don't think IPFS is good as a framework for an imageboard, but besides that there is already an IPFS-based imageboard called smugchan.

Don't worry, user. Once normies ipfs is a streamlined version of BitTorrent, people will come in flocks to share their files. I'll post on your board.

Please actively moderate the board so it doesn't turn into Zig Forums. Years ago we had great discussions here but now that /g/'s here to stay I'm running out of retard-free places to go.

There are retard-free places to go. Of course I won't mention them on this cancerous board, but they do exist if you look for them.

Huh, I'll have to check it out then.

Easier said than done, but I'll do my best. Personally I think boards can just about self-moderate themselves if the communities occupied and there are things to do that aren't shitposting and template threads. The Libbie threads were a good example for that type of thing, Zig Forums was really great those few weeks because people could put their energy into something.

True. I also believe that people shouldn't depend on moderation but rather filter anyone who's an obvious troll, instead of replying and derailing the thread.

LOL

This is closer to thread 12.
Previous thread:
/ipfs/Qmdp1CL6VQPsRaqd34n9vr71EnQ4xDU8Yed1XdDqVupuWJ/

Big CDNs stand to lose money if people can host and distribute content on their own machines just as easily. Obviously the usual DMCA suspects are mad about a system that is censorship resistant as well.
There's adoption in Firefox already so I think we're at the "fight you" stage of Ghandi's bullshit.

There's just no stopping such a technology, it's too convenient for everyone (hosts and clients) and there's no basis against it.
The big argument seem to be language wars which makes no sense since IPFS is a protocol and there's existing implementations in Go, Javascript, C, C++, Python, and probably more by now. So that makes no sense to argue over, just pick the one you personally want. Outside of that I haven't heard a good argument. Something people bring up a lot is the fact IPFS isn't as secure as TOR or I2P which doesn't make sense either since that's not the goal, the goal is interop with them, if you like I2P's routing over IPFS's, you'll be able to just swap them out. It's not trying to compete, it's trying to be the gluecode between many existing technologies that are ALREADY proven and liked.

I agree but I think filters are bad for you. People should strengthen their patience by actively ignoring it themselves, not removing it before they can even see it.

most jej
I doubt they're in financial need with the support they have.
Filecoin is literally just "what if we took your seeding credit and let you exchange it".
Private torrent trackers already do this, letting you exchange some value for some bonus like exchanging seed time for actual upload. ed2k clients have prioritized connections based off of this concept forever, people who seed more have higher download priority. The concept isn't new. It's all just a means to deal with the problem of hosts going offline. If I seed something all day I'll earn some token, I can ask someone else to host my content at night while my machine is off, in exchange for the tokens I earned during the day. That's all it is and I don't know how anyone could be mad over it. Standardized seeding credit.

Attached: Ghandi CIV 5.jpg (800x450 203.21 KB, 51.83K)

That functionality already exists in Zig Forums. It's called "hide post", or "filter by ID".

No user. Thats not how it works.

Yes user thats whats so bad about it. They have all they need and they are money grubbing for more.

Explain what you are trying to say you raging autist. I don't understand how you think a feature already present in ALL major imageboard software is somehow vulnerable to a sybil attack (which is quite an unrelated attack to what I am suggesting).

Attached: de98ad34d898374c0a21d85036695b1bf6041d04c5fce180be5f27c43a4415f6.jpg (1520x1080, 167.46K)

That doesn't make any sense. You act as if something that isn't even released yet, is inherently valuable. Knowing how cheap Amazon instances are, and the purpose of Filecoin, I can only imagine the monetary value of these things will be low. I can't see how this would be a detriment to anyone other than big hosters. People like me who leave their ocmputer on anyway and pay for fast service anyway at least stand to make a few bucks while sleeping.

I'm real curious as to how you see this as a negative thing or how the team can even exploit it for profit. Even beyond that, if they do profit, I'm still curious as to why this is bad too. I would rather open source projects get funding than Amazon, Google, et al.
Maybe it's there but I can't see any negative to this for individuals, only for corporations.

The negative is that they are wasting all their time on it instead of implementing basic IPFS features.
They are.

LOL

What the fuck are you talking about you utter moron. Filter by ID is to hide all posts made by the same user, if he's being insufferable and hasn't bothered to switch IP.

I think that's a bit unreasonable. The progress of go-ipfs alone has been great, for an alpha release they're doing all the experiments they can and improving things all the time. The js-ipfs people have done what's necessary to get browser vendors to adopt at least preliminary support, which is necessary to be a viable alternative to HTTP at all. The Filecoin project handles the incentive for hosting and distributing content, much like CDNs today, a necessary component for people who would otherwise not be able to afford to host something all over the world, and 24/7 with their own hardware. For people who are comfortable with that, go-ipfs exists already. I see nothing wrong with creating options for people, especially individuals.

Until electricity is free and networks are reliable, an incentive to host content feels like a necessity. For those with disposable resources (a good amount of people), we're already ahead of the curve.

To put it another way, in the same way HTTP is worthless if the server is down, IPFS is worthless if the content doesn't resolve.
With HTTP your only options are CDNs, with IPFS you have a CDN-like option or a self distributed option, over whatever networks you want to boot.

Kys

...

I agree, now let them make a platform thats not shit to build it on before they try to get a bunch of shekels out of it.

They fix bugs, conduct experiments, add features and reach out to vendors. I'm not sure what you're expecting. What area are they neglecting for a distributed filesystem? From my perspective this is the most active project for distributed filesystems. All I ever hear about ZeroNet are the limitations and security concerns, bittorrent doesn't have the flexibility to compete here, Upspin may as well only exist on Google's campus, and anything else is just a whitepaper with no working implementation.
IPFS is usable right now, in multiple languages, and has preliminary browser support. When is the last time you remember browsers adding protocol support like this? That sounds like vetted progress. The libp2p project (what IPFS relies on) were posting about the possibility of writing a kernel module for Linux, that would mean inserting their networking at the OS level.

You're going to have to point out the slack if you want to say they're not making progress. As someone who really wants something like this and has investigated a lot of the alternatives that existed before IPFS, this one is the only one I've seen that has reasonable progress, in a field FULL of hypothetical competition (the majority of projects like this never make it past concept let alone YEARS of regular commits).

If you're saying that Filecoin should be stable before they release it, that's what they appear to be doing. I don't know what you think is happening.

Maybe you're conflating Filecoin and IPFS? They're separate projects with separate teams. The only thing in common is some of the developers overlap and the parent company is Protocol Labs for both.

These things should be done in parallel, otherwise you end up in situations where IPFS is released and people don't adopt it because there's no CDN-like equivalent. For a p2p network, adoption/popularity is obviously important. They're most likely trying to finish everything at the same time.
IPFS on the desktop, server, browser in combination with Filecoin for non-tech businesses who want to host data worldwide.

For reference, Filecoin is a blockchain, the only thing it likely has in common with IPFS is libp2p, having 2 applications of libp2p during development is valuable in itself since it will likely have different needs and encounter different problems to fix before release.
IPFS is just a decentralized datastore with content addressing. You could implement a blockchain on top of it but I'm willing to bet Filecoin is Ethereum based or very similar.

No. IPFS should have more basic shit working before they build filecoin.

Totally wrong
layer on top of IPFS
filecoin.io/filecoin.pdf

fucking newline

oh no no no no

>>>/cuckchan/

Why? I can see the benefit of developing them in parallel, I can't see a reason not to do it.
What I'm asking is, how is Filecoins existence detrimental to IPFS, especially when we both agree it's a necessary component to have early on for adoption.

Implementing something on top of IPFS is a perfect way to actually test the stability and limitations of the base. How else would you do it?

Being built on top of IPFS does not mean it is similar to IPFS, it means it is an extension of it. They're implementing things on top of IPFS that IPFS doesn't have itself. IPFS obviously isn't a blockchain and doesn't have a token of its own, but you could easily implement them with merkledags and libp2p. That's what they're doing.

I think we're just having a discussion, user. I'm not interpreting the replies as "roasts", they seem legitimate. As someone who is interested in seeing decentralized networks take off, I'm very interested to hear the negatives of IPFS and what alternatives we have for it, but from everything I've seen and heard I'm banking on IPFS for now.
People are saying something is wrong but not explaining it well, I'm trying to discuss it with them to figure things out for me and anyone reading. From my current perspective a lot of the flak seems unfounded but I'm giving people the benefit of the doubt.

More importantly, this should be done before they freeze all the APIs and decide on defaults. Now is the only time to do that. Otherwise you have an implementation meant to build on top of without that having actually been tested first. I don't just mean technical testing either but conceptually too.
etc.
If they dogfood their own product now, it should benefit everyone currently and later.

lel

Because they are working on too much shit and IPFS needs more work.

Because its the same developers and company.

Exactly. Which is why they need IPFS to be good before they build more shit on top of it.