News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Putting This Blog on IPFS. Parent comment

Re:Putting This Blog on IPFS by zaarn on Friday September 21, 2018 @12:16AM (#18037111)
Not really, if some niche content with 20 people who read it goes offline, it is very unlikely the content will come back.

And then someone will have to put in the money to pin/host the content anyway if you want to keep it online.

Link rot is solvable with tools such as WARC Proxies.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Putting This Blog on IPFS by cbluth on Friday September 21, 2018 @01:36AM (#18037382)
> Not really, if some niche content with 20 people who read it goes offline, it is very unlikely the content will come back.

You think these 20 people will stay offline forever?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Putting This Blog on IPFS by zaarn on Friday September 21, 2018 @02:55AM (#18037678)
You think these 20 people will keep that niche website they read once in their cache forever or even pinned?

Torrents die all the time because nobody bothers to donate bandwidth to strangers for content they barely care about.

How is IPFS different?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Putting This Blog on IPFS by ricardobeat on Friday September 21, 2018 @04:13PM (#18042339)
It is different in that a completely unrelated third-party can pin this content of their own volition, and it will continue to be provided under the exact same address/hash. In the web, the domain owner is the single entity who can ensure survival of the content.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Putting This Blog on IPFS by zaarn on Saturday September 22, 2018 @02:49AM (#18044855)
Torrents do the same thing. Dat also does that. Even better in either you don't have to think about pinning. Why should IPFS be the one?
[ Parent | on HN ]