faq

> There are max. 2 millions TOR users, everybody can access the website hosted on IPFS (7 billion) Only via a centralized relay, giving up the other nice properties. > TOR is sensitive to DDoS attack, IPFS; it is not. To DDoS a ToR website you'd need to overload the server(s) the website owner set up. To DDoS IPFS you'd need to overload the whole network. Harder, but not impossible. See [1]. > Ipfs is permanent web. Sort of, but you have to address pinning. > Law enforcement can access the onion sites in the same way as others ... A cop in undercover can appear like an ordinary citizen and purchase dope from a dealer Yes. Solving this would require implementing an evil bit[2]. I don't think IPFS has solved that problem? [1]: https://github.com/ipfs-inactive/faq/issues/171#issuecomment... [2]: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt

https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/36#issuecomment-140567411 My understanding is that it is not possible for Tor nodes to block (or even know about) what you are accessing.

> What are the major differences with dat and IPFS? • https://docs.datproject.org/docs/faq#how-is-dat-different-th... • https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/119

Some decent answers in this stack overflow thread: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44859200/what-are-the-di... and a good response from IPFS creator jbenet here: https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/119#issuecomment-21827839... I think it's possible to view Dat and IPFS as two different layers of a stack that can interoperate and each solve useful problems at their layer. For example, Dat has more UX focus and high-level abstractions making generic app development smooth and easy (an area IPFS is weaker - though https://medium.com/textileio has been working to make this much better), while IPFS has the benefit of global name-spacing and content-addressing primitives that enable deduplication across identical datasets and validate the content is what you asked for (used by tools like Qri to do dedup within a data commons: https://qri.io/

This FAQ from github is a helpful summary of human-readable IPFS via IPNS: https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/16#issuecomment-232497229

For me, the "Back it up in a place you trust" is coming back to square 1 of the parent poster's problem. I actually do have my photos on (a few) disks and computers, not on Google, and I still have the problem that I want to hurl money somewhere and say, "use this money..." I'm kinda hoping for some open-source solution to emerge based on IPFS or the like, which would let me easily control replication of my photos & vids over a few local disks (probably via some local NAS machine[s]), and some online paid pinning service. There are apparently some efforts towards something like that in the IPFS community [1][2], but no clear winner yet I think, or at least especially no good UI/UX for this yet. [1]: https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/47 [2]: https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs-cluster/issues/157 edit: some random service/startup which I just goo

> But, if you put it on IPFS, what hosts the wallet, and wallet API? Which wallet? You can use whatever wallet you want which supports the functionality the DApp requires. There are dozens of wallets, some are in-browser. > Also, last I checked, IPFS is not censorship resistant: https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/36#issuecomment-140567411 While I didn't mention anything about censorship, I suggest reading that entire thread and its continuation. All it discusses is the ability to have curated blocklists. It's up to you whether you want to use them or not. What I did mention is that you don't have to use any specific replication protocol. Don't like IPFS? Use something else. If you did want to use IPFS and you're concerned about censorship, then consider that IPFS is a distributed hash table protocol with some default client rules. If you

But, if you put it on IPFS, what hosts the wallet, and wallet API? Also, last I checked, IPFS is not censorship resistant: https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/36#issuecomment-140567411

Fun fact: Beaker used to support IPFS[0] and the IPFS creator used to work with the Dat project[1]. [0]https://github.com/beakerbrowser/beaker/issues/480#issuecomm... [1]https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/119#issuecomment-21827839...

> It is not possible to synchronize or version a dataset in this way in IPFS without implementing such functionality yourself But why not build version control on top of IPFS? It has been discussed here: [1]. It seems a matter of correctly working with immutable data structures (which IPFS provides storage for). And it seems a bit silly to rebuild that storage layer from scratch. [1] https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/83

I'm not sure what you mean by "the crypto is not ideal"? I was under the impression that there are not yet collisions for SHA-256 https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/22 Only for SHA-1 (which has 160 bit hashes) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-1#Attacks

Isn't IPFS censorable? That's the impression I got from this FAQ entry: https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/47

I love IPFS but how exactly does IPFS/IPNS solve the DDOS problem? The FAQ entry on this is not very convincing [1]. [1] https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/171

Encrypt the files before adding to IPFS and then decrypt after receiving them. Support for encryption will be built-in into IPFS in the future but for now, this solution works. There is a issue tracking this here: https://github.com/ipfs/faq/issues/6 Also, when adding files yourself, those files become pinned by the default. Getting files won't pin automatically however. You have some more information about pinning here: https://github.com/ipfs/examples/tree/master/examples/pinnin...