Good stuff thanks for sharing.
As far as I know, IPFS is struggling on performance because there's not enough nodes running in the system due to lack of incentives. So they're launch a token (filecoin) that they hope will change that .
RE: Decentralization is not binary
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Decentralization is not binary
There will be a variety of incentives around the base protocol. I like that's not tightly coupled to currency. It makes IPFS a natural complement to a variety of other systems.
You can't really call a protocol "struggling" -- adoption and resiliency are issues, for sure, but the inherent nature of the protocol make it very well suited to sharing certain types of information.
For instance, posting images and other binary files to steemit via IPFS could be very interesting. The content hash would be encoded with the blog post, and could be served a number of different ways.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Why can't you call a protocol struggling? IPFS is struggling on performance. Services actively aren't using the IPFS protocol because of lack of speed and uptime. Again, once filecoin is launched the hope is that will change because more IPFS nodes will have incentives to run in the network.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Would you say HTTP is struggling? Someone might not be running enough Apache servers, but the protocol is just fine.
I get your point for decentralized systems, it's actually a mix of the protocol AND active nodes. I'm excited by IPFS-the-protocol, because it's a non blockchain based system, and we're going to need a mix of different approaches.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Sure, you'd say HTTP was struggling if it wasn't getting adoption.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit