Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by X6S1x6Okd1st 2831 days ago
Seems way more tractable to me than solving link rot in the regular web.
1 comments
zaarn 2831 days ago
Not really, if some niche content with 20 people who read it goes offline, it is very unlikely the content will come back.

And then someone will have to put in the money to pin/host the content anyway if you want to keep it online.

Link rot is solvable with tools such as WARC Proxies.

link
cbluth 2831 days ago
> Not really, if some niche content with 20 people who read it goes offline, it is very unlikely the content will come back.

You think these 20 people will stay offline forever?

link
zaarn 2831 days ago
You think these 20 people will keep that niche website they read once in their cache forever or even pinned?

Torrents die all the time because nobody bothers to donate bandwidth to strangers for content they barely care about.

How is IPFS different?

link
ricardobeat 2831 days ago
It is different in that a completely unrelated third-party can pin this content of their own volition, and it will continue to be provided under the exact same address/hash. In the web, the domain owner is the single entity who can ensure survival of the content.
link
zaarn 2830 days ago
Torrents do the same thing. Dat also does that. Even better in either you don't have to think about pinning. Why should IPFS be the one?
link