If IPFS hosts were paid in sats for staking their storage/network capacities then IPFS would have the right incentives. Otherwise it's just wishful thinking hoping the world just hosts shit for free on your devices.
What we need is a layer on top of IPFS that provides a marketplace for selling/buying storage and/or throughput.
reply
If IPFS hosts were paid in sats for staking their storage/network capacities then IPFS would have the right incentives.
Yeah and it's super unclear how long you are guaranteed that storage for. A year? 5 years? One month?
What we need is a layer on top of IPFS that provides a marketplace for selling/buying storage and/or throughput.
Isn't that what Filecoin is supposed to be? The problem of course is that nobody wants to buy that shit coin. No reason to not just use Bitcoin.
reply
As the advertiser of the content you'd be buying a commitment from a pool of hosts, like an LN channel, if you stop hosting before the time expires you'd be penalized? Or the hosts get paid by the pool as long as they host it?
Problem with Filecoin is that it isn't Bitcoin.
reply
This was written almost two years ago. For some reason i find that interesting because he is not wrong but Ethereum has gotten probably 80x bigger since then. This makes me curious how important decentralization is.
reply
I'm personally a fan of the Gun model where content-addressing is optional, not the default.
Not everything should be permanent. In fact, most things should not be lol.
reply
reply
[deleted]
reply
How did you manage to post that twice?
reply
I guess I posted it, didnt wait for the server response and switched to a different app. Came back and the JavaScript had timed out and showed me the message again? Can't think of anything else.
reply
Another user did the same thing recently. I think you're right about the cause too.
reply