| ▲ | chriswarbo a day ago | |
> IPFS, Freenet, and experiments like that > a libertarian decentralized P2P E2EE communication project Your argument makes sense for Freenet (though I'd personally defend that project too); but not so much for IPFS. Firstly, IPFS doesn't have any encryption (E2E or otherwise). Also, Freenet spreads data around the network (for robustness and plausible-deniability), so the peers providing a file are not the peers which inserted it. IPFS does no such thing: if you want your content to remain available, you'd better be running an IPFS node that provides it. Either way, it feels like a pretty bad idea to host dodgy stuff on IPFS. IPFS is much closer to HTTP. The difference is that content is immutable, and can be re-hosted by anyone that happens to have a copy (e.g. no need for mirrors, etc.). (Note that HTTP was invented to disseminate physics research; not CSAM) | ||
| ▲ | inigyou 14 hours ago | parent [-] | |
The other difference is that IPFS takes 120 seconds to locate a file. | ||