| > Unless they changed policy, seeding is strictly a manual, opt-in process. Pinning may be manual, but is not content automatically cached and seeded (until purged from the cache) once any content is retrieved? > I disagree, IPFS is a pretty reasonable plan for resiliency in the case of static web content, as previously discussed. How is it a reasonable plan to exploit the naive and the uninformed or to depend only on those that are outside your juridistiction and unassailable by their own? > If instead of "kindness of strangers" you frame it as a "market with incentives" to maintain information availability it is both less condescending and more accurate to how situations are likely to play out with things like DMCA'd content. What incentives exactly would those be? I also find it interesting that you object to kindness from strangers. >>So, while better than traditional HTTP > (which is all it needs to be) That might not be sufficient for IPFS to get enough adoption, tho. >>IPFS isn't really immune to takedowns nor very resilient. > That wasn't the goalpost we originally set, nor one of the project's longterm objectives, so I'm not sure the relevance. Fair enough. It is however relevant in the sense that it both removes a use case and acts as a disincentive for users to participate, as there is no liability shielding. |