IPFS General

Huh... where do I start... What is IPFS? IPFS(Inter Planetary File System) is a new Peer to Peer distributed web file system protocol that aims to replace the aging HTTP protocol. It aims to be a peer to peer, permanent, hypermedia content addressable file distribution protocol.(Thereby also replacing FTP in many use cases) Imagine a web where you don't have to pay for hosting your simple static webpage/blog. A web where latency is minimised because instead of downloading from a server on another continent, you can just download it from your neighbor or roommate if he has that content. A web where distributed web apps will continue working even if your ISP is having major breakage.A web that will reverse the process of the centralisation of the internet and make it completely decentralised. A web where content won't be lost so easily by a failure of a single server and links won't break by changing a single letter in the path. A web that you can mount locally on your FUSE and manipulate with the files on it as if they were locally. In some ways, IPFS is similar to the World Wide Web, but IPFS could be seen as a single BitTorrent swarm, exchanging objects within one Git repository. In short... IPFS will hopefully become the web 3.0 one day. NOTE: IPFS is still in ALPHA. At least a quarter of it's features are not even implemented yet. Cool, but how do I get IPFS to work on my machine? First you have to download the correct package from: https://dist.ipfs.io/#go-ipfs GNU+Linux 1) After you have downloaded the binary, you have to unpack it in it's own directory. And then enter the directory. 2) Now you can install it with: sudo ./install.sh Or: sudo mv go-ipfs/ipfs /usr/local/bin/ipfs 3) Now IPFS is installed. However it needs to be initialised. Initialisation will make a repository at ~/.ipfs. ipfs init 4) Now you are ready to start the IPFS daemon: ipfs daemon 5) You can check your connection to the swarm with: ipfs swarm peers Troubleshooting: If when you start the IPFS daemon you get a 'bind: address already in use' error then you need to first learn the PID of the process that is using the deafult IPFS port and then kill it: sudo netstat -tulpn | grep 8080 sudo kill -9 [PID] Windows 0)The installation on WIndows is fairly similar as on Linux. However it si slightly different. Well. first you need to unpack the file ofc. Now: 1) Open a command prompt and enter: echo %path% Choose the appropriate folder out of those where you will put ipfs.exe 2) Copy ipfs.exe in the chosen folder. 3) Initialise the IPFS repo: ipfs init 4) Start the IPFS daemon: ipfs daemon 5) Check your connection to the swarm: ipfs swarm peers

Part 2: BSD 0) Download and unpack the binary. 1) Now you run the install script: sudo ./install.sh 1.5) Troubleshooting(If everything is fine you can skip this step): -Some BSD systems can come preinstalled with another package called IPFS. That package is some NAT package. It might be important so you might want to be careful. But do you want to have IPFS? If so then continue: First check the output of: which ipfs If it says /sbin/ipfs, then: sudo mv /sbin/ipfs ~/ Maybe you can rerun sudo ./install.sh. 2) Ok now we need to initialise the repo: ipfs init 3) And now we can start the daemon: ipfs daemon 4) We can check our connection to the swarm with: ipfs swarm peers MAC OK, I honestly rage quit when trying to install IPFS on MAc OS, as all I had was a VM, and yet I had to somehow enter a failsafe boot which was impossile for me on ym VM, and disable gatekeeper. And gatekeeper is like kicking dead whales down the beach(I wrote this, not the filter). If you still want to try: 0) Disable gatekeeper completely 1) Install IPFS. The BSD instructions can probably help you. Or: https://ipfs.io/docs/install/#installing-from-a-prebuilt-package FINAL STEP FOR EVERYONE -Install the Firefox/Chrome IPFS extensions, so that you can browse IPFS from the browser. I personally use Firefox. Ok, but what are some interesting things to do? Show me some content and/or distributed webapps? IPFS based Websites The IPFS webite: http://127.0.0.1:8080/ipfs/QmZfSNpHVzTNi9gezLcgq64Wbj1xhwi9wk4AxYyxMZgtCG/ Interplanetary wiki: http://127.0.0.1:8080/ipfs/QmdDbLyNKCwtBVFhEVQfdBTCnEWmWRJGnm93qa3kzBjVym/#!/home Gio'd Amelio Blog: http://127.0.0.1:8080/ipfs/QmdPtC3T7Kcu9iJg6hYzLBWR5XCDcYMY7HV685E3kH3EcS/ Cryptix blog. Also an example of human friendly names on IPFS: http://127.0.0.1:8080/ipns/www.mindeco.de/ With Love from snow blog: http://127.0.0.1:8080/ipfs/QmfQiLpdBDbSkb2oySwFHzNucvLkHmGFxgK4oA2BUSwi4t/ Brewster Kahle's blog: http://127.0.0.1:8080/ipfs/QmavE42xtK1VovJFVTVkCR5Jdf761QWtxmvak9Zx718TVr/ Awesomebrowny's blog: http://127.0.0.1:8080/ipfs/QmeKZSrzAZ5bhaxH2rvm8HEsiqfKceG1FuLHwwbD3mbnEo/www.awesomebrowny.com/

Part 3: Webapps IPFSTube: https://ipfstube.erindachtler.me/ IPFSBin, an IPFS pastebin: http://127.0.0.1:8080/ipfs/QmTvGbPiS1PaE7AAn4gEszNiYMgdrbMXwLkGnLKYSADs8K/#QmSS3dUE5oKdyDNvpGsYCXgm2mBW4fSDzC5B3NDf7DR8VR IPFS pics, a distributed web image hosting app(currently down): https://ipfs.pics QR code render: http://127.0.0.1:8080/ipfs/QmccqhJg5wm5kNjAP4k4HrYxoqaXUGNuotDUqfvYBx8jrR/qr#enter%252520text%252520here IPFS search: http://ipfs-search.com/ Multimedia Lot's of recordings from CCC: http://127.0.0.1:8080/ipfs/QmNwEiWPc8EPc9kGEqdi9UeM5RY8jRJSPVdrtKELFZRH85/ Chaosradio: http://127.0.0.1:8080/ipfs/QmeF6AutCb1HKzrtpYb7VAECcHgtuodJ7xjDdbPJmcSriE Risc-V workshop: http://127.0.0.1:8080/ipfs/QmdycyxM3r8b2pHx3M63Xd8NUfsXoEmBnU8W6PgL9eY9cN Atari 2600 + IPFS: http://127.0.0.1:8080/ipfs/QmbKxNNCxBox7Cmv3jiUZbiG3zpzmtnYzVUuKHxfAjvpyH/ Anon's qt website(beware it's an 8ch user, enter on your own responsibility): http://127.0.0.1:8080/ipfs/QmP7LM9yHgVivJoUs48oqe2bmMbaYccGUcadhq8ptZFpcD/ Stanford IPFS seminar: http://127.0.0.1:8080/ipfs/QmSd1buim52MtQP1SH2XhN7FC8c1KdFrFKBNmgdUKFdss8/Stanford%20Seminar%20-%20Juan%20Benet%20of%20Protocol%20Labs.webm Graffen.dk: http://localhost:8080/ipns/QmTm7RdPXbvdSwKQdjEcbtm4JKv1VebzJR7RDra3DpiWd7/ Another IPFS homepage: http://localhost:8080/ipns/QmWTyP5FFpykrfocJ14AcQcwnuSdKAnVASWuFbtqCw3RPT/ ANIME REACTION PICS: http://127.0.0.1:8080/ipfs/QmVbCbGE39kSpgwX33j3s5XiidgFaY8SdE23VBqtbf8rgc Memes: http://127.0.0.1:8080/ipfs/QmRa2z3zTL2XHtheAjYnsuSDiyDn4sKktWrywg31KdnMmX 99% of those, but not all were taken from this list: https://www.reddit.com/r/ipfs/comments/63ev6h/list_of_ipfs_websites/ And a lot more stuff can be found here: https://github.com/ipfs/awesome-ipfs Ok, you got me hooked. How can I contribute? Well you can look here, for fun stuff to do: https://ipfs.io/docs/examples/ Fun stuff like passing the video hash to your mplayer and letting it play video from IPFS: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmNZiPk974vDsPmQii3YbrMKfi12KTSNM7XMiYyiea4VYZ/example#/ipfs/QmRFTtbyEp3UaT67ByYW299Suw7HKKnWK6NJMdNFzDjYdX/videos/readme.md To add stuff to IPFS you gotta have the daemon up, and then you can either add stuff trough the firefox extension by going to the webui of the extension. Or you can add stuff via CLI: ipfs add myfile You can now read it with: ipfs cat [hashofmyfile] You can upload folders with: ipfs add -r folder Now to truly learn about IPFS: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.3561.pdf ...Well I think that's it. Anything further... you should better learn on your own. Please, talk about IPFS and it's accompanying technologies. Also share your own and any interesting hashes you find here.

Show should server-side processes work

>>152 How* Body is short :///

>>152 That's one of the first things people ask... Dynamic server side content is done via one or more of the following: -IPNS-Inter Planetary Name Space-Serves as a name space, can be used with DNS for human readable names. -IPLD-Inter Planetary Linked Data-Among many other things it does routing inside IPFS. -Public Key Infrastructure -distributed agents -signalling You can see more on it here: https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/28

I hope they'll implement something to be anonymous or to use TOR without leaking your IP through DHT.

>>165 It's not one of their goals. The problem with anonimity is that the internet ever since it's inception was never designed to be anonymous. As for IPFS, you will be able to connect trough i2p and tor to it.

>>142 Could somebody explain the difference between this and Freenet to me?

>>205 Freenet works by downloading content on freenet to your disk randomly without your choice. This is why it will never work for businesses as it could bring illegal content onto their machines, including cp. No matter how much the data on the freenet container is encrypted, it is a legal nightmare. IPFS downloads only the content you requested. Then you seed it until your garbage collector runs trough it. Unless you 'pinned' the content and then you seed it indefinitely. Also Freesites on freenet are pretty much incapable of dynamic content, while IPFS has already demonstrated capabilities of dynamic content.

>>206 So basically, anyone (LE) on the network could potentially see if you downloaded certain content. Great.

>>207 which network do you mean?

How is content permanent? Will I need to have part of the internet in my hard-drive to seed it? How will a site not die/run out of seeds?

>>206 Thanks for the explanation. What happens once nobody seeds a website any more and nobody has it in their stored files? As far as I am aware, what keeps Freesites up is that they're stored across the Freenet and that basically makes them always reachable, I personally have visited some sites from the early 2000s.

>>213 >How is content permanent? Content isn't 100% permanent. It's 99% permanent. However it is still miles better than HTTP. Because you can have a server on IPFS except it acts more like a seedbox in a swarm of peers. In HTTP when a server dies the content is gone. In IPFS when a seedbox dies there's a good chance that someone else has it. Plus the internet archive has already started using IPFS. Plus they are also working on Filecoin which is a cryptocurrency where you will mine cryptocoins by hosting rare data on IPFS. You will be able to exchange that for bitcoins. You a mere mortal will be able to make some neetbux basically by browsing the net. And this will keep a lot of the content alive. >Will I need to have part of the internet in my hard-drive to seed it? No. And better so, because businesses would never accept for legal reasons that I explained earlier in this thread. Only whatever you download will stay in your repo for a while. It works a lot like a git repo as well. The price of hard drives per gigabyte has beeen dropping faster than bandwidth price anyways. What is however 100% permanent on ipfs is linking. HTTP uses location addressing which is terrible, because it is enough to change the name of the content or even a single letter in the URL of the content and it will break all of the links leading to that content. IPFS on the other hand uses superior content addressing. That is as long as the contents of files a,b,c,d,...,z are the same IPFS will treat them as one file, regardless of where those files are or of their name. I.e. 1) You put a meme onto IPFS and it get's 'link A' by which people can access them. 2) Someone else puts the same exact meme onto IPFS, IPFS notices that they are the same and starts treating it as if it is the same and it also get's 'link A'. A lot like torrents where multiple users seed 3) You decide to remove the file, but it will still be available on the same link because the person from step 2 still has t. IPFS should primarily be compared to HTTP. Because that's what it aims to replace(not in all use cases, but most of them).

>>214 If we're talking worst case scenario. The website dies. But hey, if we're talking worst case scenario a nuclear holocaust could wipe freenet as well. Anyways in the case of content permanency and especially in the case of link permanency IPFS is a lot better than status quo which is HTTP, without having the drawbacks of freenet. The internet archive has already expressed interest into IPFS and they will probably archive a load of stuff. Plus there's filecoin that I already mentioned. A cryptocurrency that will incentivize people to host the rare stuff for money. But here's something interesting, once something dies on IPFS, if someone then finds the dead stuff stashed somewhere on a CD, and then he decides to reupload it to IPFS, all the formerly dead links will work again. You can even prestage stuff before you actually upload it to IPFS. Or you can even mount IPFS locally via fuse(if you want a tutorial on that, just ask me). Then you can manipulate with content on IPFS as if it were on your own machine. Then you have basically mounted the (ipfs) internet on your own machine. Which is insane. IPFS also enhances your capabilities of manipulating data on the internet, as it's also a file system.

by the way I fixed https://ipfs.niles.xyz/ , it was soykafting the bed when it tried to scrape /lam/ which doesn't exist anymore

>>215 >However it is still miles better than HTTP. Because you can have a server on IPFS except it acts more like a seedbox in a swarm of peers. > In HTTP when a server dies the content is gone. In other words, you don't control the content anymore. Why would any commercial entity want that. And why would anyone mirror my noobsite for free, except for some hypothetical $just_another_cryptocurrency (aka not free). I'll just pay a hoster $1 a month, it has less layers of complications inbetween. And when I stop paying, content disappears on both instances. This makes zero sense to me: How does throwing software and complicated handwavy concepts magically make storage cheaper? If it doesn't, why would things be stored longer when nobody pays for it?

>>215 >What is however 100% permanent on ipfs is linking. HTTP uses location addressing which is terrible It is also human-readable if you want it to be. hashes aren't. are metadata like sensible filenames stripped by ipfs-linking or do they magically auto-restore when downloading an ipfs link? I assume making sense of my reaction image collection gets much harder.

>>142 I tried to understand and appreciate this, but I find myself unable to. This seems just like a throw-together of buzzwords and afterwards try to imagine a problem which it solves. Imagine in some case in a certain scenario some metrics are better than some other... what is it even? Software? Protocol? Network? Filesystem it is definitively not. One point I'll give it: It perfects the "cloud" idea without even mentioning it: complete loss of control over what is stored where. Is there a graph that shows depending on parameters A, B, and C the file is stored N times? Or is it probabilistic: "is stored n times with n of the probability distribution N[A,B,C]"? Does it have some peer distribution mechanism like DHT? Some rsync or bittorrent-style chunking mechanism? As far as I can read from the documentation, DHT is used for the database of pointers to nodes that possess certain files. And it uses some bittorrent-style sharing-maximization algorithm: So I can only visit a website at useful download speed when I seed something? Doesn't this punish asymmetrical bandwith subscribers and people who clear their webcache? It looks like some people put much effort in this, but what do they want to achieve? Somehow everything, but "not exactly".

>>276 >what is it even? Software? Protocol? Network? Filesystem it is definitively not. It's a protocol. It's a file system not in the sense of a disk file system, but in the sense that it facilitates data storage and access. >Or is it probabilistic Yes >Does it have some peer distribution mechanism like DHT? Yes it does. S/Kademlia DHT. >Doesn't this punish asymmetrical bandwith subscribers and people who clear their webcache? The whole big deal of this is that it is p2p and it distributes the web. If it wouldn't be p2p, there would literally be no point to it. >asymetrical bandwidth If it succeeds, ISP's would need to adopt. >people who clear their webcache Hey, you wanted to clear your webcache.(IPFS repositories can be set with a space limit if you want to) >Somehow everything, but "not exactly". Yes. It's a revolution of the web, not an evolution. Or well, it's more that HTTP was stagnant ever since it's inception. Even HTTP 1.2 was nothing more than a hotfix. IPFS does however want to keep as much API compatibility as it can.

>>279 Just to add up to my previous post. If IPFS succeeds, it will be a paradigm shift. And it's showing signs of early adoption even in it's alpha phase.

>>273 I agree, I don't understand how this will be any different than Freenet other than being able to decide what you host. Most of us don't even have our browsers save the cache anyway, why would anyone have incentive to host anything? >Filecoin Yea, but that defeats the purpose distribution. There is going to be giant warehouses that specialize in mining Filecoin, making it infeasible for the average person, just like what happened to Bitcoin

>>279 >>279 >>Does it have some peer distribution mechanism like DHT? >Yes it does. S/Kademlia DHT. maybe I was not specific enough: I saw the DHT part for the data-to-possessing node db. I mean, is there a mechanism for evenly distributing data chunks over the network to maximize availability on higher churn rates? The "at which nodes to store my descriptors" part of a DHT scheme.

>>279 >If it succeeds, ISP's would need to adopt. Just as a remark, the asymmetric bandwidth is more due to the infrastructure not supporting it (long copper cables made for lowfreq communications) iirc. I however agree with you that forcing telcos to deploy fibre everywhere would be great, only am I not quite sure that will happen.

>>276 It's a protocol with an implementation. You can read the paper if you want to know what it actually is and does. The TL;DR is that it's torrents, but seeding one file improves you reputation for leeching any other file. Your reputation is tied to the public private key pair that your client generates on installation. Implementations are expected to keep track of who seeds well and prioritize better seeders. This encourages users to seed others and avoid wiping their identity. >>206 Conforming IPFS nodes can forward arbitrary data. This is incentivized as a way to build up reputation. I don't know if the current implementation does it, and I don't know much about Freenet, but IPFS seems similar. The following lines from the IPFS paper agree with me. >In some cases, nodes must work for their blocks. In the case that a node has nothing that its peers want (or nothing at all), it seeks the pieces its peers want, with lower priority than what the node wants itself. This incentivizes nodes to cache and disseminate rare pieces, even if they are not interested in them directly. If a block has nothing that others want, it can try and search for what the peers want. >Peer.send_want_list(WantList). >While the connection is open, nodes advertise their want_list to all connected peers. This is done (a) upon opening the connection, (b) after a randomized periodic timeout, (c) af- ter a change in the want_list and (d) after receiving a new block. >Upon receiving a want_list, a node stores it. Then, it checks whether it has any of the wanted blocks. If so, it sends them according to the BitSwap Strategy above. Want lists are saved after being received. This may or may not be temporary.

>So basically, anyone (LE) on the network could potentially see if you downloaded certain content. Great. The want list is a list of block hashes, not files or names. It's possible that different files may overlap blocks, like the header to binary format or a section of transparency on a bitmap. Also, if your node is the kind that does leech on behalf of other nodes (There's nothing barring this and it's incentivized by the protocol.), it cannot be clear which blocks are meant for you and which blocks are meant for others. I'm not sure how the laws where you live would interpret either of those. There is support for public key encryption and every node already has a key pair, so it's possible something like Tor could be created on top of it, but I'm not sure how that would work exactly.

>>284 >There is going to be giant warehouses that specialize in mining Filecoin, making it infeasible for the average person, just like what happened to Bitcoin Doesn't matter. At least it means that files onIPFS will be stored on such datacenters for a really long time. You will probably still be able to cash out if you are an early adopter.

I would be interested to see >>273's question answered: >And why would anyone mirror my noobsite for free, except for some hypothetical $just_another_cryptocurrency (aka not free). Choosing what to mirror just makes me think that people will mirror sites they like, but lesser-known sites have a good chance of dropping off the network if the original creator leaves. Is the goal of IPFS "99% permanent for popular content"?

>>301 The goal of IPFS is 100% link permanency and 99% permanency for all content. Eventually probably stuff like the internet archive will find your stuff. Plus you can have your own seedbox. As much as I like IPFS, IPFS can not break the laws of physics.

>>303 >Eventually probably stuff like the internet archive will find your stuff. >Plus you can have your own seedbox. Ok, so lesser-known sites do have a good chance of dropping off the network if the original creator leaves. If you say IPFS has 99% content permanency because the Internet Archive is involved, then HTTP has 99% content permanency for exactly the same reason.

>>304 Not him but I guess the argument would be that if no-one saved it it's simply because it wasn't worth saving. Say you ran a small page with a dedicated community, you'd probably encourage your users to mirror the site in case something happened. If they didn't care enough to do that, it wouldn't be a big loss if it disappeared.

>>304 No it doesn't because HTTP doesn't provide them with the required functionality. Or rather, it doesn't make it easy. What about all the other stuff that was mentioned that keeps the content on it? Combine all of that, and then by the time IPFS reaches production quality it's gonna be pretty damn hard to erase content of it. You also know that your statement about HTTP simply is not correct about the way it is now. Heck I bet that 1000's of people will upload their dickpics to ipfs and they will cry for being unable to remove them. I repeat, I never said that IPFS bends the laws of physics.

>>304 Dude, if you want to use freenet or something, just go and use it. However, after 17 years it is sure that freenet will never be used by normal people, and is incapable of dynamic content on freesites.

>>214 Worst case scenario: literally not one person is seeding/hosting it? Same thing that happens to every file or website ever in the same situation

>>304 >If you say IPFS has 99% content permanency because the Internet Archive is involved, then HTTP has 99% content permanency for exactly the same reason. Internet Archive requires people to know of its existence and manually check to see if the website they're looking for exists there; with IPFS, IA can just "drop in" as a host for sites that would have otherwise died.

>>291 >Implementations are expected to keep track of who seeds well and prioritize better seeders. This encourages users to seed others and avoid wiping their identity. If this is how it works in its final release then it will fail because it doesn't support anonymity. People who stay anonymous and refuse to host content will slow down the network, similar to how torrents can get really slow when seeds<demand I'm not saying it would be impossible to be anonymous(ex. browse on vm separate from hosting/seeding identity) but it would be much easier to just not host seeds at all, which is what most people would do.

>>319 But if you don't host, why would any node send you data?

>>319 Why would normal people want to be anonymous on this network other than the traditional reasons for anonimity? I mean, I do support anonimity, but... Anonimity is not a goal of this project. Don't move the goal posts. If you mean that pirating audiences would want to stay anonymous, well tough luck but even the IPFS devs don't want pirates on their network and are working on anti piracy measures. But if you really want to be anonymous you can use it trough tor and i2p.

>>142 Gentooman's library. Not sure how long I can host this, so it would be good to pin this. http://127.0.0.1:8080/ipfs/QmaZVSEjpRrC4V88kEkYffVTd7Co6KY27LeQnQ1rCh3oFJ

Polite Sage

What about hash collisions?

>>572 IIRC the devs have already taken it into account. In can't remember the exact details tho. Look it up if you want.

>>327 >the IPFS devs don't want pirates on their network and are working on anti piracy measures. Sauce? >>572 I tried searching for collision stuff in the paper, but couldn't find anything on it. I assume it's like bittorrent, where the hashes are unlikely to collide and the blocks are big enough that creating a different block with the same hash isn't feasible.

>>572 Only very very weak hash algorithms can be collided. IPFS does not use those. Also IPFS is built in a way that hash algorithms can be exchanged if a need arises. >>586 >sauce I talk with the devs on IRC on occasion. As for the measure itself, IPFS will come with blocklists on each peer. Of course the user will be able to modify them, but then the NSS will be able to know that you modified them. There probably will be other measures as well, as I have seen that the devs are quite bent onnot going the torrent way.

A list of IPFS links will be published on the LainWiki

>>634 Cool, tell us when it's done.

>>630 > but then the NSS will be able to know that you modified them > We will build the new Internet! > P2P! > Persistent! > With more surveillance! Let us be honest here. All IPFS promises is that you'll be able to host data and serve customers of meracorporps (for free) and share other bits they don't really care about (yet). Very promising.

>>719 Let me fix this for you: >With equal amounts of surveillance But if you're so much into rights on the internet talk, then IPFS will be next to impossible to censor, because if a million people download and therefore also start sharing some NSA leak, no 3 letter agency in the world will be able to censor a million of peers.

I am pro privacy, however, answer me this... Why do you guys keep trying to derail a thread that isn't about privacy into yet another privacy thread? Privacy is a nice goal, but there are other independent nice goals as well. Please if you can't say anything other than 'muh privacy on IPFS' just leave the thread. Either that or there is a lot of samefagging going on in this thread.

>>764 Just to continue: Also most of the privacy related questions have already pretty much been answered.

>>IIRC they just maintain a blocklist for their gateway.

>>763 >With equal amounts of surveillance You are incorrect. See below. >>764 Because its not just about privacy. Its about privacy if you consume only. If you produce its about free speech. I post in this thread so that people interested in filesharing would not get complicit with VC-funded IPFS botnet and look for alternatives. For example: * torrents over I2P * Tahoe-LAFS over I2P both of those work today. There also exists a forgotten treasure of Owner-Free File System. If you're developing a new thing, please, consider re-implementing OFFSystem over I2P in a modern cross-platform language. OFFSystem makes copyright moot. You can't claim you own any bits stored in it without claiming ownership of everything ever created. It also gives some privacy. I2P gives some more privacy. Meanwhile, IPFS? Free hosting for mega-corporations, *easier* censorship for you. Today you need to scan the web to DMCA and/or censor, with IPFS you can just censor the hash. That's not the direction humanity should move.

>>786 OFFS sounds interesting. Was it never advertized enough? Were there problems with it? But maybe it came before its time and people didn't feel it to be necessary roughly 10 years ago. I'll look into this stuff. No promises but maybe I'll get somewhere at some point down the line.

>>786 OK, let me ask you, how would you combat cp on such networks? >you can just censor the hash Yeah, and if the user is insitent he can go around that because the blocklist is on his node.

>>307 I never mentioned freenet. I was simply asking about the claim that ipfs has 99% content availability. Now it's clear that it doesn't, it's exactly the same situation as the normal web.

>>790 Ok, then explain what is 99% content availability in your own point of view.

>>792 Well, "99% content availability" (I didn't introduce the phrase into this conversation) makes it sound like pretty much everything published to ipfs will never go away. This discussion has made it clear that that's only true for content which either (a) ends up on the Internet Archive, or (b) people care enough to keep copies of themselves. That's exactly the same situation as the normal web, so does the normal web also have "99% content availability"?

>>764 >Why do you guys keep trying to derail a thread that isn't about privacy into yet another privacy thread? >Please if you can't say anything other than 'muh privacy on IPFS' just leave the thread. tl;dr >If you mention the cons of IPFS then I don't want to listen to you. In order to have an accurate and informative discussion about any given topic, more than one side of an argument needs to be present. Only talking about why IPFS is good won't contribute anything to the discussion. Nothing is perfect, and exploring the flaws of a system can often be more informative than only discussing the benefits of it.

>>803 OK then tell me... What's so bad with optionally going trough tor or i2p to ipfs? Note: Unlike bittorrent and similar IPFS won't just dumbly send it's traffic without regard for the underlying anonymization network. It will however use secure sockets and the anonymization network will handle the lower layers of routing.

>>798 You know it would take just one visitor for people to cache your content for at least a while. Or if you have IRL friends or neighbours you could make a community IPFS hosting circle. Or filecoin. Where people will make an economy of hosting your 'uninteresting' content.

>>788 >But maybe it came before its time and people didn't feel it to be necessary roughly 10 years ago. I think, this. Also client software UX probably kicked dead whales down the beach too. >>789 > OK, let me ask you, how would you combat cp on such networks? How do you combat cp on Freenet? How do you combat cp on tor? How do you combat cp on the web? But since you want to play the cp card I will play along. For reference, I think child abuse is horrible. Also, child abuse is more than just cp. Most schools in US are perfect child abuse in my opinion. Anyway, producers of cp should burn in hell. OK? Now, with that out of the way, consider the following 0. Many registered child abusers in US are children themselves. They snap naked selfies and "abuse" themselves by sending said pics to friends. 1. There's no evidence that stopping dark net cp distribution stops child abuse. But there's some evidence to the contrary for violence (some studies in the 90's have shown that there's less street violence when violent soykaf is shown on TV). 2. FBI was (and probably still is) the largest distributor of cp on the dark net. See Freedom Hosting case. 3. Distribution of copyrighted works without explicit permission of the copyright holder is piracy => dark net cp distribution is piracy. Hollywood wants you to believe piracy hurts producers. I think current state of law is fuarrrked up. All it does is push FBI agents up the career ladder. If I were the government I would stop fighting the distribution and pour all the resources into jailing producers. But that's hard work. Jailing people who accidentally clicked on some soykaf on the dark net and got a government malware deployed onto their PC or just sending an encrypted .zip with some cp to someone you want in jail and then jailing him/her for possession is much easier, no disagreement about that. >>833 >OK then tell me... What's so bad with optionally going trough tor or i2p to ipfs? You can't just wrap any protocol into I2P and hope for the best. I don't know enough about the inner workings of IPFS to judge, but I heard that IPFS devs explicitly said to people asking that they don't care about such puny privacy things, they want their VC overlords to be happy. > Note: Unlike bittorrent and similar IPFS won't just dumbly send it's traffic without regard for the underlying anonymization network Wat? What is the difference between torrents and IPFS except for IPFS caching data for a while (and having an http interface)? Pinned IPFS files are basically single-file torrents, no?

>>291 >Implementations are expected to keep track of who seeds well and prioritize better seeders >nodes advertise their want_list to all connected peers >>327 >Anonimity is not a goal of this project >>833 >underlying anonymization network <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rsRjQDrDnY8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

>>836 >Anyway, producers of cp should burn in hell. Do you think kids should burn in hell for producing cp? They produce large amounts of it.

>>836 >2. FBI was (and probably still is) the largest distributor of cp on the dark net. See Freedom Hosting case. The FBI ran Freedom Hosting for a short amount of time, it existed for a long time before that. Other cases have been similar. I do not think the FBI was or is the largest distributor.

>>836 Nice wall of text. Still doesn't answer the question: how to combat child porn? And no, banning only "production" and not "possession" or "distribution" is is not a solution. Anyone could produce it in other countries and then sell it/possess it legally in that country. It has already happened.

>>861 Content censorship is not a feature of any anonymity network, if that's what you're asking. What law enforcement does and will continue to do is identify targets, use 0days against them, and gather enough information for search warrants. The only alternative to this may be criminalizing anonymity.

>>630 >I talk with the devs on IRC on occasion. Thanks! I also went ahead and found something about it here. https://github.com/ipfs/community/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md#copyright-violations >as I have seen that the devs are quite bent onnot going the torrent way. I will enjoy seeing those hopes denied.

>>836 >Wat? What is the difference between torrents and IPFS except for IPFS caching data for a while (and having an http interface)? Pinned IPFS files are basically single-file torrents, no? IPFS has bitswap. Imagine torrents, but if you leech an unpopular file then other nodes will attempt to find it and seed it for you. This is by incentive, not convention. This is the only good thing it provides.

Well, apparently someone tried to censor Wikipedia in Turkey... However, it got decensored on IPFS: https://ipfs.io/blog/24-uncensorable-wikipedia/

>>274 If you put a file on ipfs, the filename goes away. But if you put it in a folder then put the folder on ipfs, the folder name goes away and the file name stays human readable. Also, IPNS has a lot of extensions for human-readable shortcuts (dns-like) shortcuts and aliases for hashes.

Old IPFS thread before the big wiping: https://archive.is/hk6xp

>>1072 Thanks lain!

>>786 There's native Tor support and I2P support is being worked on. https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37

>>836 >Distribution of copyrighted works without explicit permission of the copyright holder is piracy => dark net cp distribution is piracy. Hollywood wants you to believe piracy hurts producers. OFFICER I WAS ONLY WATCHING CP TO HURT THE CP FILMERS

>>1287 I had never considered this point TBH

Found a soykafton of content: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmU5XsVwvJfTcCwqkK1SmTqDmXWSQWaTa7ZcVLY2PDxNxG/ipfs_links.html https://hardbin.com/ipfs/QmQQNu8Kwrbavv91CwM1AvSMmY27fuuByvm2DGgtZUizVh/#9DVjXM8VEDcu7PP7nDikBGWy9QeVNnHDsHwswq3cEn3H

https://www.wired.com/2017/06/pied-pipers-new-internet-isnt-just-possible-almost/?mbid=social_fb

>>142 So in essence its Torrenting: Website Edition

>>1695 That's a gross oversimplification but yes.

Here ya go http://localhost:8080/ipfs/QmQeewzohfaCm9V5TYBJXYeDjbHxJaF5gBxFBNcsftgf3j

So are you looking for developers?

>>2318 Who? There's their github, anyone can join.

>>2346 >1 commit this month Hmm

>>2353 a) The month has just began b) Summer break c) They have dosens, maybe hundreds of repos https://github.com/ipfs d) All of the above Sorry if this was snarky.

>>2390 Haha I think I just needed someone to talk me into doing it. Thanks lain

>>2398 >>2390 Alright, feeling encouraged about this project. I've decided to try to work on the c++ api repo, as I am a c++ Dev. One of the unimplemented methods has to do with the DAG, which sounds great as I am Graph Theory obsessive. Have got the repo and its dependencies and it builds after some fiddling. Will start by writing a simple driver to use the API to get a few objects from the net. Then will move into deeper parts of the protocol. Is anyone interested in some collaborative work ? A lainchan mini sprint? I have limited bandwidth for Dev projects right now but will keep the thread updated with my progress. Please reach out if the project interests you.

>>2948 Additional thoughts, I'm feeling pretty salty after the filecoin ICO. Makes me think Protocol Labs is just your typical silicon valley jackoff session. Still, hoping there might be some revolutionary potential in the protocol itself, and any tool promoting decentralization seems a worthwhile project. Hope that I can shape the project in a liberatory direction by participating.

>>2949 You mean the fact that they've only opened it to accredited US investors, thus guaranteeing huge investment from elite suckers and exclusion of ordinary suckers? Or just the fact that they're delaying and using such typical *coin rhetoric that they no longer seem quite like noble underdogs? As mentioned above, the people who will profit are those who own/can set up big datacenters at locations which are central in the network topology. An early-adopting CDN would make bank if the coin itself takes off. But I guess the content-addressing is a big leap forward (I encounter so many dead links especially when I'm doing research) and it'll still be more horizontal than today's system if everyone's acting as a host for their neighbour (even unwittingly, ie, through their cache). That is, I agree with you that the underlying protocol is still very promising and hopefully this increased attention to the network will just help fulfill that promise. What was that quote about the capitalist selling rope to the revolutionaries ... ?

>>2948 I would help but I am not a dev. Nevertheless I think I am quite well versed 'conceptually' in IPFS. I read the IPFS paper several times.

>What was that quote about the capitalist selling rope to the revolutionaries ... ? Love your thinking.

>>3010 Do you want to chat? I am excited about the prospect of a deep-dive on the DAG datastructure.

Idea to auto-archive youtube: Create a daemon on the browser that download videos from youtube every few days, then create a decentralized key-value store of IPFS hash to [YoutubeID, Video Name, Uploader Name] using orbit-db https://www.npmjs.com/package/youtube-dl https://www.npmjs.com/package/orbit-db

>>3728 Why not upload stuff to IPFS manually?

Here is an article about how IPFS is used in the catalan independence referendum: https://la3.org/~kilburn/blog/catalan-government-bypass-ipfs/

I am looking at this gentoo package: https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/net-p2p/go-ipfs-bin And I am wondering if I should install it or just install it by hand. So far my gentoo installation is bin-free, but this package is tempting? Will this package download many bin dependencies and potentially ruin my installation? What do you guys think, is it hygienic to install this package on a source based distro?

>>4960 >Will this package download many bin dependencies There is no such thing as "bin dependencies". Do emerge -pv go-ipfs-bin to see what would be installed (-p for pretend). Or look at /usr/portage/net-p2p/go-ipfs-bin/go-ipfs-bin-0.4.10.ebuild The only dependency is sys-fs/fuse and only if you enable the fuse use flag. >What do you guys think, is it hygienic to install this package on a source based distro? It's in the main portage tree.

>>4968 Thank you, I am just testing the waters because I don't want to cause the binpocalypse on my installations.

>>4969 >I don't want to cause the binpocalypse on my installations. I don't understand what that means. You are more likely to have problems if you circumvent the package manager and install things manually.

Apparently Scuttlebutt devs have been talking about using IPFS to help with offline content and finding friends who are offline.

>>4979 You don't want to install binaries on source based distributions if you can avoid it. It renders some of the advantages of source based distributions moot, as you can lose control of required libraries and use flags.

>>4986 This level of FUD and ignorance is getting painful. I regret trying to help now. Just forget about Gentoo and install Ubuntu or something ok.

>>4993 Dude I am a noob at gentoo and am just parroting what people on #gentoo irc have told me. I might even remember it incorrectly. And also even though I came from Ubuntu and Debian I am pretty sure the FSF is more approving of Gentoo.

>>4985 how would that help with offline-anything? Since IPFS is clearly net-based

>Filecoin >No privacy >Anti piracy measures >No moderation There is nothing good about this, its a catastrophe waiting to happen

>>6899 I haven't checked into IPFS since early 2017 but I was directed back to this thread from another board. What is this soykaf show? Why tf are they doing all this anti-piracy soykaf? When I first started running the daemon the only worthwhile thing about it was finding little troves of pirated media.

>>7115 I lost all respect for ipfs when I found out they built centralized censorship into the project. fuarrrk these guys. https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/176

>>7117 Nigga these is optional

>>273 >In other words, you don't control the content anymore. Why would any commercial entity want that. People can't arbitrarily change the content because it's addressed by hash, so you still control what the content is. You don't control when the content stops being available, but that's kind of the whole point. However, ipfs is still vulnerable to mitm attacks by someone claiming to have the content and then sending different content, if the receiver doesn't check to ensure it's the proper content, such as with the example on the ipfs website ("Git even more distributed") where someone is importing soykaf into Go from ipfs. >>833 >OK then tell me... What's so bad with optionally going trough tor or i2p to ipfs? ipfs uses a persistent public/private key pair to identify nodes. A Tor exit node can sniff traffic and log the public key your ipfs node advertises to peers, and then malicious exit nodes can track you via your ipfs id. For example, you have ipfs running through Tor. You get a malicious exit node that is logging traffic for its circuits and it notes that your circuit is advertising an ipfs id of dickbutt. All the other traffic you route through that circuit is now associated with that id, making you pseudonymous instead of anonymous. When you switch circuits and get a new exit node, you're still going to be sending out, "I'm ipfs dickbutt!" over that circuit, allowing the new exit node to associate traffic from that circuit with your ipfs id. An adversary controlling exit nodes can now reliably track you across any new circuit you make while ipfs is running. If such an adversary is also tracking the state of the ipfs swarm you're connected to, and you connect to ipfs without Tor, the adversary can note that change in your ipfs id's ip address, check that against a list of exit nodes (Tor exit nodes are public), see it's not an exit node, and determine that you're connecting to ipfs without Tor. Since the Tor traffic they logged earlier tracked you by your ipfs id and now they know the real ip for your ipfs id, they can connect that Tor traffic to your real ip address. Using ipfs with Tor weakens Tor's anonymity by making it easy to track you, and allows another attack vector for malicious exit nodes to unmask you. >>7115 >>7117 >translate DMCA requests into blocklists >can configure client to use or not use blocklists >opt-in Lol, are they being intentionally silly, here? Download the blocklist, configure your client to ignore the blocklist, then have your client add all the hashes in the blocklist to your want_list and easily download the blocked content. If the nodes still have to opt-in to using the blocklist, most nodes shouldn't be using it. Instead, adding the content to the blocklist just makes it super easy to find derezzed content. Has that even been implemented? The specs and go-ipfs repos have no references to "blocklist" or "blacklist."

>>7219 >ipfs uses a persistent public/private key pair to identify nodes. You should have stopped here. The stuff about exit nodes sniffing traffic is irrelevant. If your application layer address does not change, then the effectiveness of changing your network layer address through Tor or i2p is limited. >Download the blocklist, configure your client to ignore the blocklist, An opt in blacklist means you are now liable for the content your node shares. You *choose* not to apply the blacklist. You cannot now say that you do not know/care what your node is sharing like with Tor/i2p/Freenet etc.

I clicked on "Programming books". I hope this behavior is limited to ipfs.io...

>>7241 >not pasting the URL in your reply Yes, if I go through my own node I can see it.

>>7241 I'm surprised anyone would put in a dmca for that garbage. So what's the point of ipfs if it's only government approved content? We already have the clearnet for that.

seems like breddy much every link is broken ::DDD

>>7223 >>ipfs uses a persistent public/private key pair to identify nodes. >You should have stopped here. The stuff about exit nodes sniffing traffic is irrelevant. If your application layer address does not change, then the effectiveness of changing your network layer address through Tor or i2p is limited. This is true, but I feel it's worth pointing out how not only does using Tor with ipfs not really help you increase your anonymity with ipfs, but it also weakens the level of anonymity you get out of Tor itself, since now all of your clearnet Tor traffic is associated with your ipfs id.

>>7294 >it also weakens the level of anonymity you get out of Tor itself, since now all of your clearnet Tor traffic is associated with your ipfs id. Tor generally uses a different sequence of hops (circuit) for each TCP connection. Even if your ipfs traffic and clearnet traffic go through the same circuit, there is no way for the exit node to know they both came from you (that's the whole fuarrrking point of Tor). So this is not correct.

>>7296 >Tor generally uses a different sequence of hops (circuit) for each TCP connection. Can you provide a reference for this, please? It has been my understanding for a while that Tor will route multiple applications through one circuit, as stated by the Tor project: >The third attack from their paper is where things get interesting. For efficiency, Tor puts multiple application streams over each circuit. This approach improves efficiency because we don't have to waste time and overhead making a new circuit for every tiny picture on the aol.com frontpage, and it improves anonymity because every time you build a new path through the Tor network, you increase the odds that one of the paths you've built is observable by an attacker. But the downside is that exit relays can build short snapshots of user profiles based on all the streams they see coming out of a given circuit. If one of those streams identifies the user, the exit relay knows that the rest of those streams belong to that user too. > >The result? If you're using Bittorrent over Tor, and you're _also_ browsing the web over Tor at the same time, then the above attacks allow an attacking exit relay to break the anonymity of some of your web traffic. https://blog.torproject.org/bittorrent-over-tor-isnt-good-idea This is an old article (2010) and hints at making changes to fix this, so I think my information may just be out-of-date.

>>7299 Right after posting, I found the source in the spec regarding the fix to the problem in the old Tor Project blog post. You're absolutely right. Tor now maintains different circuits for each port being connected to, effectively separating applications to different circuits. >When running as a client, Tor tries to maintain at least a certain >number of clean circuits, so that new streams can be handled >quickly. To increase the likelihood of success, Tor tries to >predict what circuits will be useful by choosing from among nodes >that support the ports we have used in the recent past (by default >one hour). Specifically, on startup Tor tries to maintain one clean >fast exit circuit that allows connections to port 80, and at least >two fast clean stable internal circuits in case we get a resolve >request or hidden service request (at least three if we _run_ a >hidden service). > >After that, Tor will adapt the circuits that it preemptively builds >based on the requests it sees from the user: it tries to have two fast >clean exit circuits available for every port seen within the past hour >(each circuit can be adequate for many predicted ports -- it doesn't >need two separate circuits for each port), and it tries to have the >above internal circuits available if we've seen resolves or hidden >service activity within the past hour. If there are 12 or more clean >circuits open, it doesn't open more even if it has more predictions. https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/path-spec.txt

>>7299 >>7300 Doesn't matter. If your ipfs and web traffic goes through the same circuit the exit still doesn't know both came from you so >>7294 is wrong regardless. Using ipfs doesn't degrade the anonymity of non-ipfs traffic.

>>7299 I only skimmed the paper but this doesn't make sense to me at all. The paper is as vague as the blog post. >3.5 The Domino Effect >Tor multiplexes >different TCP streams of the same source over a single cir- >cuit. Consequently, the source of the BitTorrent stream re- >vealed by one of the attacks will also be the source for all >the other streams that are multiplexed in the same circuit as >the one used by the BitTorrent stream. We call this issue the >intra-circuit domino effect, as identifying the source of a sin- >gle stream in a circuit reveals the source for all other streams >multiplexed on this circuit. How does the exit node link together these unrelated streams to the de-anonymized stream from the same source? The only thing they have in common is they came from the same source but the whole point of onion routing is that the exit does not know the source. >5.2 Fine-grained Analysis: Users’ Profiling >In this section we show evidence of how anonymity issues >may lead to privacy risks, while using BitTorrent on top of >Tor... >However, exploiting our attacks, and thus >de-anonymizing the actual user’s IP address originating the >connections, such information become very sensitive, as sev- >eral data mining techniques (e.g. [11, 23]) could be used to >profile the targeted user. It doesn't look like there was any real world experiment or proof of concept. Tor has a simulation network for this exact reason. On the one hand Tor blog probably wouldn't publish someone incorrect about their own project but on the other hand this looks like complete bullsoykaf.

>>7326 This is not entirely true. If your traffic for two applications go through the same circuit, the exit node will see the traffic for exactly the same period of time, allowing the exit node to tie the pieces of traffic together and profile you. This is the same reason why Tor -> [VPN/SSH tunnel/Proxy] routing is discouraged by the Tor Project.

>>7329 WIth the default 3 node hops. Everyone really needs to learn about tor-control-protocol. Also if you read the papers, alot of the profiling (the bleeding edge ones atleast) are performed under ideal ocnditions and not under normal under load conditions. With defaults set. The papers tend to stress the algorithm or method used. Change the circuit length to 4, the circuit tear down time, and other factors, and these methedologies break. Since the configuration is only known to the client, that statistical peculiarity can't be accounted for from a zero-knowledge position that most of these methods start in.

>>7332 https://www.thesprawl.org/research/tor-control-protocol/ I forgot to cite the tor control protocol information.

>>7329 >This is not entirely true. If your traffic for two applications go through the same circuit, the exit node will see the traffic for exactly the same period of time, allowing the exit node to tie the pieces of traffic together and profile you. Do you have a reference for this? I understand what you mean, if an exit sees two TCP connections stop at the same time then they probably came from the same place. But that will only happen if you kill -9 your local Tor daemon or your internet cuts out or something. Tor won't just tear down TCP connections when it's time to switch circuits and different applications won't be in sync with each other like that. https://www.torproject.org/docs/faq.html.en#ChangePaths >>7332 >WIth the default 3 node hops. The post you are responding to has nothing to do with hop count. Increasing your hop count is only going to increase latency and make your traffic stick out more and easier to correlate (you'll be that one idiot who's traffic takes twice as long as everyone else to get from guard to exit). There is no benefit besides some vague hope that being different will somehow confuse attackers. Also known as security through obscurity.