specs

The beauty of ipfs is the transport protocols are completely modular. They do a pretty good job supporting a lot of variety a separating concerns via https://github.com/libp2p/specs

At the bottom is the link to the more technical specification: https://github.com/libp2p/specs/blob/master/kad-dht/README.m...

The problems you described are specific to implementations, not the protocol itself. I have read all of the QUIC specs in full (since I'm working on an implementation) and have seen nothing in any of them that mandates a centralised certificate infrastructure (caveat: I have not read the HTTP/3 spec, perhaps you could point out the relevant section if its in there). Of course, the most common use case requires this, but in that respect it's no different to HTTPS. IPFS uses QUIC as one of its supported transport protocols, and this works in the most common implementation, Kubo [1]. The spec for the QUIC transport used in IPFS [2] indicates the same certificate trust policy as for the TLS protocol [3]. The latter, in turn, relies on peer-to-peer authentication with automatically-generated self-signed certificates containing a libp2p-specifi

Yes, there is already a Rust version (https://github.com/libp2p/rust-libp2p) that behaves well at this level but I think we can reach a higher level of performance on this point with Zig. Also, if you look at the long term roadmap of libp2p (https://github.com/libp2p/specs/blob/master/ROADMAP.md), the mobile devices and IoT integrations for example are part of the considerations.

Hi HN, during December 2022, we are running a measurement campaign to investigate decentralized NAT hole punching success rates using the libp2p DCUtR protocol [0]. Ubiquitous peer-to-peer connectivity is still a big challenge. If successful, NAT Hole Punching can be a game-changer for decentralised applications and networks! For that we are searching for participants who would run a lean client on their machines that performs hole punches with other peers and then reports back the results to our server. We explained the measurement methodology in this video [1] and the linked repository above. Running such a client certainly has privacy implications which are documented here [2]. Most importantly, we record public IP addresses, successful NAT port mappings, and the login router page (to draw conclusions about which routers work better th

Hey there! I’m one of the first developers to work on IPFS, and was the maintainer of the project for around three years. I’ve since been pulled into working on Filecoin, which has definitely taken away from the time I can spend pushing IPFS forward. That said, the IPFS Project has a really solid team and OSS community still pushing the project forward, and there is an entire team working on just libp2p (the network stack used by IPFS and other projects like Livepeer, Ethereum 2.0, OpenBazaar, and more). There’s been a ton of progress made recently, and the network has grown significantly. We’ve gone from nearly 30k peers last year (this is hard to estimate accurately, but best guess) to around 400k peers on the network today — roughly 13x growth. This massive influx in usage has taken a lot of our attention up, things catching fire that

Several of the key members have shifted focus but there's still a core IPFS team. But we're still spread quite thin. We're still paying down years of documentation debt but there has been quite a bit of progress: * Expanded https://docs.ipfs.io/ with a concepts section. * Tutorials https://proto.school/#/ * A ton of work on libp2p specs (https://github.com/libp2p/specs/commits/master) along with a full time documentation writer.

Hey Mark, pretty sure you're talking about floodsub, which is a naive implementation of pubsub of top of libp2p, not actually 'libp2p'. Libp2p is quite a bit more than a simple p2p pubsub library. In any case, floodsub is just one option you can use for pubsub on top of libp2p (one with a notably high level of reliability and minimal cross network latency for infrequent messaging). We also have a tree pruning gossiping implementation called gossipsub. Take a look at the spec: https://github.com/libp2p/specs/blob/master/pubsub/gossipsub...

Both js-ipfs and go-ipfs have the circuit relay which effectively makes you dialable in the browser: https://github.com/libp2p/specs/tree/master/relay

There's a circuit switching relay protocol [1] in the works which will allow multi-hop connections. This is generally useful for situations where two nodes can't directly connect to each other, be it because of NAT, censorship, or simply because they don't have a transport protocol in common (e.g. js-ipfs in the browser). That means nodes can soon use the Websockets transport to connect to a domain-fronted node (this part already works), which then acts as a relay. [1] https://github.com/libp2p/specs/tree/master/relay