HN Gopher Feed (2017-11-04) - page 1 of 10 ___________________________________________________________________
The decentralized WeTransfer
64 points by alexsicart
https://github.com/alexsicart/Decentralized-Cloud___________________________________________________________________
ape4 - 3 hours ago
At least, I like the name - IPFS (the InterPlanetary File System)
gvx - 2 hours ago
Note that the submission is not about IPFS itself
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterPlanetary_File_System), but
about Decentralized Cloud, which is a project that is built on
top of IPSF.
lucideer - 3 hours ago
This HN title needs revision.Otherwise, great link; nice looking
project.
grzm - 3 hours ago
Suggestion: "Decentralized-Cloud IPFS file transfer"
alexsicart - 2 hours ago
Good one
grzm - 2 hours ago
If you're no longer able to edit the submission title
yourself, you can contact the mods via the Contact link in
the footer and have them change it for you.
alexsicart - 2 hours ago
Okay thanks a lot :)
[deleted]
monokh - 3 hours ago
I'm trying to figure out how this would be decentralised. As far as
I understand, merely hosting something on IPFS doesn't make it
decentralised if there is only one node.- Where is my file hosted
when I receive it?- Has your server pinned and seeding that file?-
Is there a distributed set of nodes that also host it?
mtgx - 2 hours ago
> As far as I understand, merely hosting something on IPFS
doesn't make it decentralised if there is only one node.Doesn't
that apply to torrents, too? If 2 or more people don't own (and
share) the exact same content, then of course it's not
decentralized.
alexsicart - 2 hours ago
It's not the same torrents than ipfs, completely different!!
https://ipfs.io/
monokh - 2 hours ago
Sure, I guess the difference is, torrents have an inherent
mechanism of becoming distributed. Once someone else has a
whole/part of the file, they begin seeding immediately (unless
stopped of course). In the case of this app, I just receive a
download link which is a proxy for pulling something from the
network. It would be something else, if the way to get a hold
of this file would be through an IPFS node that the user was
running.
StavrosK - 2 hours ago
I'm not really sure what you mean. IPFS works just like
torrents. As soon as you receive the file, you start
"seeding" it.
monokh - 2 hours ago
Yes it does. But I don't believe this app is using any
actual seeding mechanisms of IPFS from a user perspective.
Which is why i'm asking about where the nodes would be to
make this distributed and decentralised.My guess is that
the server of this project uploads and "pins" this file in
IPFS, in which case it would be no different than a
centralised solution. If the server goes down, your file is
unaccessible.Also, when you use this app, you aren't doing
this through an IPFS node to then be able to seed it. You
are just downloading the already hosted file using a HTTP
proxy service that can download from IPFS.
StavrosK - 2 hours ago
> But I don't believe this app is using any actual
seeding mechanisms of IPFS from a user perspectiveI'm not
sure what you mean here. Any user can "seed" any IPFS
file they want, they don't need anything from this
service.> in which case it would be no different than a
centralised solutionA distributed solution with N=1 isn't
the same as a centralized solution. The difference is
that distributed solutions can easily increase N, but
centralized solutions can't. In this case, you can
distribute the file from as many nodes as you control,
which makes this service much better than a centralized
solution.> Also, when you use this app, you aren't doing
this through an IPFS node to then be able to seed itSure,
but you can use something like www.eternum.io (or just
run your own IPFS node) to fix that. If you don't want to
do either, of course you won't have any of the
advantages. It's like saying "cars aren't better than
couches, they aren't much more comfortable and they don't
run if you don't start the engine".
monokh - 2 hours ago
You might be misunderstanding my position. I think IPFS
is great and should be used. But this specific project is
not really attending to any problems.It's in the core
functionality of IPFS to be able to host a file and the
http proxy is available by default by IPFS. So the real
problems are distributing and decentralising the file
(such as by running an IPFS node) and this project is not
making the slightest attempt at that. Without that there
is little point in using this service as it is just like
any other centralised hosting service, just so happens
that the file is on IPFS.
StavrosK - 49 minutes ago
Oh, I see what you mean now, that it's not much better
than raw IPFS. In that case, I might agree, although I
think UX matters a lot too.
hanklazard - 1 hours ago
>It would be something else, if the way to get a hold of this
file would be through an IPFS node that the user was
running.I agree, this seems to sort of bypass IPFS on the
download side because my mom doesn?t have to have a node
running to download the picture I send her.However, one
potential benefit of this service could be to act as a foot-
in-the-door to gain a user base ... I could imagine a .dmg
/.exe in the future setting up an IPFS node for your average
non-techie user. Still, that doesn?t solve the problem of
competing with existing & simple centralized solutions with
similar features, as noted in other comments.Glad to see
people building projects with IPFS. Nice work.
omarchowdhury - 3 hours ago
This is the problem I see with decentralized projects.The user
experience here, is essentially the same as WeTransfer. The only
difference is the underlying technologies.Now, one would have to
either blindly trust that the infrastructure is truly
decentralized, or have the time and necessary skills to audit the
code.And then they'd have to trust that web server is actually
hooking up to the code that was just audited!What this means is,
"decentralized" projects still require a level of trust, even on
the behalf of people who understand what decentralization
means.Next is the problem of the "masses". They already are using
WeTransfer, or Dropbox for that matter. Why should they switch to
this? Because it's decentralized? Now you have to explain to them
what that means and why that's beneficial to them, and if you're
successful there, they still have to: trust the code (and they only
can do that by understanding it) and trust that you're actually
deploying that code on your live interface.Thus, the
decentralization community has got a marketing problem. Fortunately
for Bitcoin they've got and continue to have massive amounts of
free press, press which does not even actually highlight the
decentralized aspect of Bitcoin, just the price action. There is no
press movement to help catapult "decentralized infrastructure."I'm
just saying, decentralized projects currently only seem to appeal
to people who are interested in decentralization. There needs to be
a way to move pass this hurdle if there's going to be the much
sought after "mass adoption."The average person doesn't care how
something works, they just care that it does work. And plenty
solutions already work for them.I just hope in the end, we aren't
just tinkering for the sake of tinkering.
[deleted]
Joeboy - 2 hours ago
Recent reports of google docs arbitrarily removing people's
access to their documents seem like pretty good marketing for
decentralized solutions.
crazygringo - 2 hours ago
That was a bug. Are you saying decentralized solutions won't
ever have bugs which temporarily prevent people from accessing
certain files until the bug gets fixed?
contravariant - 2 hours ago
If a bug on your end could prevent other people from
accessing data then I wouldn't call that decentralised.
mtgx - 2 hours ago
> I just hope in the end, we aren't just tinkering for the sake
of tinkering.I don't think we are. IPFS is one of the few
projects that gives me hope that within 10 years the internet
won't be completely carved-up and censored by the big tech
companies and governments.
alexsicart - 2 hours ago
But for example, wetransfer only allow to upload 2GB files, my
proposal unlimited and permanent. I believe people don't need to
know it uses blockchain...
charlesdm - 2 hours ago
That's a feature, not a product. I'm assuming you can transfer
larger files through WeChat if you pay?I believe decentralised
systems serve a purpose (especially in fintech), but I'm not
sure this solves an actual a problem (marketing it will be
10,000 harder than building it).Also, as a business open
sourcing stuff hardly ever makes sense. Not sure what your goal
was with this (cool tech though!) but if it was to set up a
business, I don't think that was a great decision.
alexsicart - 2 hours ago
censorhip? Here in my country, there are webpages
blocked(blocking dns). We see there is a lot of censorhip on
the internet. IPFS is permanent, anyone can't eliminate that
content. You can get access, with lots of gateways.
alexsicart - 2 hours ago
I believe we should build distributed projects, seems equally to
products already people love, but using great tech as ipfs, to
have permanent and unlimited files.
alexsicart - 2 hours ago
Because this tech, need to be visible to HUMANS if we want to
create the next internet.
alexasmyths - 2 hours ago
"Thus, the decentralization community has got a marketing
problem."Yes, and it's because security is a feature, not a
solution.99% of people (think your Mother, or your non-techie
buddy back home) - do not care that much about these things. 'The
feature' they care about is 'sharing'. They can already get that
robustly via regular services.So maybe 'it's nice' to have some
degree of extra privacy', but not if they actually have to do
something, think about it, install something - yada yada.For a
select few, privacy/security is in and of itself a feature, and
might be a primary motivation for use/purchase, but it's a small
group.Example: intellectually, I care about the issue, but
really, I could care less that Instagram has 3 of my photos, or
that FB has a very small number of posts that I've made.I believe
the 'decentralization' movement will happen when:A) On the
consumer side it's easy, obvious, there is a push - and possibly
when adoption isn't necessarily driven by the decentralized
nature, rather, something else, a 'benefit' that is derivedB)
Enterprise. They will definitely not want their data out in the
world willy nilly. Think of how much critical data Salesforce has
for example. After a few more leaks, it could be that CIO's
everywhere demand more 'on premise' and this could be an opening
for more decentralized services.
gediminas_ - 2 hours ago
So the server which hosts the application stores the file I upload,
right? As I recall web implementation of js-ipfs isn't ready yet.
This project could potentially be much more useful when js-ipfs is
mature enough.
marmalade92 - 1 hours ago
has anyone thought that I dont want to store other people's files.
that I dont want to store my files on someone else's computer?
Decentralized is neat until 1 virus spreads in one second. beef it
up then roll it out.
ar0 - 43 minutes ago
Huh. Does this tool encrypt your files before sending them? If it
is like ?WeTransfer?, you would expect your files to be available
only to people who know the private sharing link.However, my
understanding is that IPFS will publish the file hash to adjacent
notes, so unless they are encrypted people can listen for your
provider records and look at your (presumably privately shared)
files: https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/is-it-possible-to-store-private-
ob...
highmastdon - 2 hours ago
Bittorrent protocol is decentralized wetransfer right?
sirk390 - 2 hours ago
Not really, with bittorent sender and receiving peers need to be
online at the same time.
xwvvvvwx - 2 hours ago
It would not be inaccurate to consider IPFS as an evolution of
the Bittorrent protocol.
whyrusleeping - 2 hours ago
I wouldn't disagree with that.
alexsicart - 2 hours ago
Very different protocols!
[deleted]