[clueless404]

> Well apart from battery,

... and that's pretty much the deal killer for this on mobile, even ignoring everything else.

> If I was an ISP, I´d like it if a Youtube movie

... except you are not allowed to download videos from YouTube or most (if not all) the popular video content services.

> a Youtube movie would flow from one persons mobile to the hotspot of the train said person is sitting on and on towards another person on the train.

This would only work as long as person A is running IPFS, connected to the hotspot and has any cached content somebody else is concurrently interested in. The hotspot is very unlikely to run IPFS and to have any storage, so cache hit ratios would not only be low they would be dependent on person A's transit schedule.

> This scenario would require significantly less bandwidth overall.

No, the same amount of bandwidth would be consumed, but perhaps over a cheaper radio bearer.

> The IPFS powered internet would perhaps lead to more uploads but it would scale significantly better and will be cheaper to maintain.

Somehow I doubt that. Total costs would most likely go up, but they would perhaps be more spread out.

> Hence cost can also go down for end users/consumers.

Consumers don't spend anything for accessing content on the Internet, so I really doubt there are any cost savings to be had.

[teekert]

> ... and that's pretty much the deal killer for this on mobile, even ignoring everything else.

It is, for now, indeed.

> Except you are not allowed to download videos from YouTube

I think youtube would be interested in some load balancing if they could keep the income from commercials. Wait, what, there wouldn't be a need for YouTube. We'd only need a way to pay content creators build into the system (Ethereum coupling somehow?? I'm not sure, can views be tracked in IPFS?).

> This scenario would require significantly less bandwidth overall.

The same amount of bits are pumped around but they have to cover significantly less physical distance and hubs. This reduces bandwidth.

> Somehow I doubt that. Total costs would most likely go up, but they would perhaps be more spread out.

Me pumping bits from my neighbor's house to mine instead of us both via the backbone from some server in a central location requires less (expensive) infrastructure between me and that central location.

> Consumers don't spend anything for accessing content on the Internet

indirectly they (we) pay for the copper and the fiber.

[clueless404]

> I think youtube would be interested in some load balancing if they could keep the income from commercials.

Firstly, it's not up to Google. Secondly, how would that even work?

> Wait, what, there wouldn't be a need for YouTube.

Yes, there would. YouTube isn't the solution to a technical problem.

> We'd only need a way to pay content creators build into the system

Why?

That's also a pretty big "only".

> The same amount of bits are pumped around but they have to cover significantly less physical distance and hubs. This reduces bandwidth

No, it doesn't. What it reduces is bitmiles. Which may or may not be significant. Mostly not, but it may have some significant if we can lower the usage of some scarce and expensive radio bearer.

> Me pumping bits from my neighbor's house to mine instead of us both via the backbone from some server in a central location requires less (expensive) infrastructure between me and that central location.

Not really. You are still going to need that infrastucture, so no cost savings.

> indirectly they (we) pay for the copper and the fiber.

So we do, but using IPFS isn't going to result in us getting a check in the mail. Costs are still zero and savings likewise.

[slang800]

> except you are not allowed to download videos from YouTube or most (if not all) the popular video content services.

If you're not allowed to download videos, then how come they show up on my screen? That information wasn't on my device before I pressed the play button.

[clueless404]

Streaming is not downloading (and seeding).

[slang800]

Streaming _is_ downloading. It's just downloading _continuously_ as the content is presented. Whether or not you seed is an entirely separate issue and has nothing to do with streaming vs downloading.

[clueless404]

> Streaming _is_ downloading.

No, it is not. Not from a legal perspective, which is all that matters in this context. With seeding you are making things worse for yourself, as you are not merely downloading but also distributing. Seeding is also relevant with regards to downloading, as IPFS automatically starts seeding what you download.

[agumonkey]

Depends, I'm wondering if it could be cheaper energy wise if everybody was tapping into each other phones nearby instead of reaching for the cell tower.

[clueless404]

No, because you don't want nearby people draining your battery by using your phone as a server.

[slang800]

By allowing your phone to be used as a server, other people will let you use their phones as a server, so you can download faster. If this sharing doesn't emerge naturally, then it can be directly incentivized with ratio tracking (like private torrent trackers), or even with money like the Karma WiFi service.

Also, I have WiFi on always and my battery lasts all day, so I doubt this will be a problem.

[clueless404]

Having wifi on all day is one thing, actually using it is totally different. Just activate your wifi hotspot on your phone and start using it from your computer. See how fast the battery depletes.

No matter what incentive scheme you device , it's not going to help you with your battery.

[slang800]

> No matter what incentive scheme you [devise], it's not going to help you with your battery.

Obviously with certain incentives, battery would become irrelevant. If this hypothetical "IPFS ratio" were as valuable as (for example) what.cd ratio, I'd have no problem carrying around car battery to continue seeding. Thankfully, I don't think it would be possible for my phone to consume that much power in a day.

[clueless404]

> Obviously with certain incentives, battery would become irrelevant.

Sure, cold hard cash would suffice, but imaginary Internet points won't do. But even with cash there comes a point where you would turn off IPFS, because the alternative would be to have a dead phone for the rest of the day.

> Thankfully, I don't think it would be possible for my phone to consume that much power in a day.

Perhaps not that much battery, but it is quite easy to deplete your battery in much less than a day by having your hotspot on constantly, which is what IPFS would require.

[deno]

Seeding when phone is actually in use would be net positive. And everyone is on their phones all the time nowadays anyway.

[clueless404]

Net positive to who? Not to the seeder, whose most scarce resource, the battery, is being exploited.