[mananaysiempre]

It feels as though, much like cryptography in general reduces almost all confidentiality-adjacent problems to key distribution (which is damn near unsolvable in large uncoordinated deployments like Web PKI or PGP), content-addressable storage reduces almost all data-persistence-adjacent problems to maintenance of mutable name-to-hash mappings (which is damn near unsolvable in large uncoordinated deployments like BitTorrent, Git, or IP[FN]S).

[dreamcompiler]

DNS seems to solve the problem of a decentralized loosely-coordinated mapping service pretty well.

[emaro]

True, but then you're back on square one. Because it's not guaranteed that using a (DNS) name will point to the same content forever.

[hoppp]

But then all content should be static and never update?

If you serve an SPA via IPFS, the SPA still needs to fetch the data from an endpoint which could go down or change

Even if you put everything on a blockchain, an RPC endpoint to read the data must have a URL

[mananaysiempre]

> But then all content should be static and never update?

And thus we arrive at the root of the conflict. Many users (that care about this kind of thing) want to publications that they’ve seen to stay where they’ve seen them; many publishers have become accustomed to being able to memory-hole things (sometimes for very real safety reasons; often for marketing ones). That on top of all the usual problems of maintaining a space of human-readable names.

[emaro]

No, not all content should never change. This is just the core of the dilemma: dynamic content (and identifiers) rots faster that static content (content addressed). We can have both, but not at the same time.