News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Sci-Bay: Google Scholar plus Sci-Hub by agumonkey on Tuesday March 20, 2018 @08:27PM (#16634151)
reminder that this went up not long ago https://whereisscihub.herokuapp.com
Re:Sci-Bay: Google Scholar plus Sci-Hub by Vinnl on Wednesday March 21, 2018 @05:00AM (#16636489)
Thanks for sharing; note that I've moved that to a somewhat simpler URL: https://whereisscihub.now.sh/

I should also add that I am also working on a project to incentivising authors to make their work freely available: https://flockademic.com/

(More info here: https://medium.com/p/the-holy-grail-in-open-access-sharing-t... )

Re:Sci-Bay: Google Scholar plus Sci-Hub by Aelius on Wednesday March 21, 2018 @09:09AM (#16637681)
Sci hub seems like the perfect candidate for ipfs, I'm astounded the mirrors haven't implementated that yet.
Re:Sci-Bay: Google Scholar plus Sci-Hub by JustFinishedBSG on Wednesday March 21, 2018 @09:59AM (#16638009)
We just need decentralized DNS for sci-hub, storage isn't needed (right now).

Plus sci-hub storage requirements are pretty big, >75 Tb...

Re:Sci-Bay: Google Scholar plus Sci-Hub by zaarn on Thursday March 22, 2018 @07:28AM (#16647646)
A dataset at the scale of Scihub would have to pay someone to keep all the various PDFs online (which IIRC is around 70TB by now), which would mean a DMCA or N&T or similar would take down paid IPFS hosters.

I'm not sure how many people would willingly play IPFS hoster for 70TB datasets for free and while not giving a shit about authorities knocking on the door.

Re:Sci-Bay: Google Scholar plus Sci-Hub by bcaa7f3a8bbc on Wednesday March 21, 2018 @02:50AM (#16636059)
> If sci-hub is going to scrape publishers, they could put in a bit more effort.

+1, especially for the Onion site. Onion service supposed to be a primary mean to host uncensored websites instead of having to look for the latest domain name everyday, unfortunately it seems nobody cares about it. Most of the time I access it from my browser, the front-end proxy was malfunctioning, or the back-end Tor daemon has dead... Tor network itself do have capacity problem, but they could do much better than a broken front-end proxy... e.g. with Onion Balance.