Who decides your data is important?
What happens to the so-called guarantees when your data suddenly becomes unimportant?
But what's cool, is even if it's unpinned, it may still be in the network so long as the data is getting active use. It opens up a whole field of seed and harvest style information flows.
So. A centralized service responsible for keeping your data. How is this different from literally anything else?
> it may still be in the network so long as the data is getting active use.
"Maybe" makes this essentially useless.
> It opens up a whole field of seed and harvest style information flows.
It really doesn't. It's literally the same problem that torrents have had for ages: anything "unpopular" doesn't exist for a very very very broad definition of unpopular.
Ok, then don't use it!
Because in addition to being like anything else, your data has a lifecycle in the network. Even if you as an initial provider of data lose interest in it, the network can hold onto it for their own purposes. The question of what data is important becomes decentralized and democratized. So long as at least 1 person says something is important and is willing to pay the resources to pin it, the data exists and can be utilized by any consumers.
>> it may still be in the network so long as the data is getting active use. >"Maybe" makes this essentially useless.
No, it doesn't. Computer systems are built on a long stack of maybes.
> It really doesn't.
You can't imagine it; it must not exist.
I think this is a big feature that I hadn't recognized until you phrased it this way. It allows a strategy of guaranteeing *at least 1* pin of your data if it's important, but from the application side, you can forget about the details of the data storage.
I doubt IPFS is fast enough to justify it over other strategies today, but it makes me think of a type of cache where if a CID can't be found, you might rehydrate some slow, cold-storage data and push it back out to the network.