With the web going more mobile with less storage space. Why would anyone would want to be a node in such a network where you have to cache content for others.
The IPFS powered internet would perhaps lead to more uploads but it would scale significantly better and will be cheaper to maintain. Hence cost can also go down for end users/consumers.
... and that's pretty much the deal killer for this on mobile, even ignoring everything else.
> If I was an ISP, I´d like it if a Youtube movie
... except you are not allowed to download videos from YouTube or most (if not all) the popular video content services.
> a Youtube movie would flow from one persons mobile to the hotspot of the train said person is sitting on and on towards another person on the train.
This would only work as long as person A is running IPFS, connected to the hotspot and has any cached content somebody else is concurrently interested in. The hotspot is very unlikely to run IPFS and to have any storage, so cache hit ratios would not only be low they would be dependent on person A's transit schedule.
> This scenario would require significantly less bandwidth overall.
No, the same amount of bandwidth would be consumed, but perhaps over a cheaper radio bearer.
> The IPFS powered internet would perhaps lead to more uploads but it would scale significantly better and will be cheaper to maintain.
Somehow I doubt that. Total costs would most likely go up, but they would perhaps be more spread out.
> Hence cost can also go down for end users/consumers.
Consumers don't spend anything for accessing content on the Internet, so I really doubt there are any cost savings to be had.
It is, for now, indeed.
> Except you are not allowed to download videos from YouTube
I think youtube would be interested in some load balancing if they could keep the income from commercials. Wait, what, there wouldn't be a need for YouTube. We'd only need a way to pay content creators build into the system (Ethereum coupling somehow?? I'm not sure, can views be tracked in IPFS?).
> This scenario would require significantly less bandwidth overall.
The same amount of bits are pumped around but they have to cover significantly less physical distance and hubs. This reduces bandwidth.
> Somehow I doubt that. Total costs would most likely go up, but they would perhaps be more spread out.
Me pumping bits from my neighbor's house to mine instead of us both via the backbone from some server in a central location requires less (expensive) infrastructure between me and that central location.
> Consumers don't spend anything for accessing content on the Internet
indirectly they (we) pay for the copper and the fiber.
Firstly, it's not up to Google. Secondly, how would that even work?
> Wait, what, there wouldn't be a need for YouTube.
Yes, there would. YouTube isn't the solution to a technical problem.
> We'd only need a way to pay content creators build into the system
Why?
That's also a pretty big "only".
> The same amount of bits are pumped around but they have to cover significantly less physical distance and hubs. This reduces bandwidth
No, it doesn't. What it reduces is bitmiles. Which may or may not be significant. Mostly not, but it may have some significant if we can lower the usage of some scarce and expensive radio bearer.
> Me pumping bits from my neighbor's house to mine instead of us both via the backbone from some server in a central location requires less (expensive) infrastructure between me and that central location.
Not really. You are still going to need that infrastucture, so no cost savings.
> indirectly they (we) pay for the copper and the fiber.
So we do, but using IPFS isn't going to result in us getting a check in the mail. Costs are still zero and savings likewise.
Also, I have WiFi on always and my battery lasts all day, so I doubt this will be a problem.
No matter what incentive scheme you device , it's not going to help you with your battery.
If you have anything to share at this point this is probably a good indication that both clients have some content in common. So first of all, transfers over WiFi while the phone is in use anyway are not that expensive, and more importantly there’s an opportunity to save a lot of battery, and data, that results in substantial net positive gain.
To illustrate imagine the likely scenario of two people using some form of Youtube with a distributed IPFS cache while on a plane. If those two people have anything in common—and certainly there are things like news etc. that are always in common, those can be shared instantly over the WiFi.
So for an insignificant battery investment, you can potentially save a lot of data and modem power in the long run.
Obviously content would be highly duplicated between peers, but you'd have access to a significant chunk of the "popular" internet, and would be able to avoid in-flight WiFi.
For such a mesh network, you don't even necessarily need to connect over WiFi - lower energy Bluetooth could be used too.
That feels optimistic. I doubt people have that much free space on their phones, especially those that don't have flash cards. Heck, a basic iPhone won't have. Even a 16GB model has something like only 12 GB free when it's empty.
> For such a mesh network, you don't even necessarily need to connect over WiFi - lower energy Bluetooth could be used too.
IPFS doesn't (currently) work over Bluetooth.
However, my main point is, that I don't think most people would be altruistic enough to participate unless they could plug in their phones on the plane.
Having run many a phone into the ground while hotspotting, I do not consider the battery investment insignificant. It's annoying enough when I drain my own battery when using the hotspot, I would never allow complete strangers to do that to me.
The network works even if people only seed during a download. Obviously, that’s less than ideal. For mobile, though, this is perfectly fine.
The point of IPFS is you can do an ‘airdrop’ without having to coordinate it. You lookup content by hash— If it’s available locally? Great! If not just get it from remote and add to cache. Simple as that.
That's a reasonable approach, but due to the synchronous requirement I guess the offload factor would be minimal. When I want to download something I might as well enable wifi and see if it's available locally. After I'm done there's really no incentive for me to keep seeding or even have wifi turned on.
> P2P networks like Bittorrent pride themselves on being available despite high churn, so this is right up their alley.
This really isn't applicable to opportunistic mobile use of IPFS, as you are unlikely to have a large enough local swarm to guarantee uptime or availability.
IPFS content is chunked, your swarm is lan+wan.
> That's a reasonable approach, but due to the synchronous requirement I guess the offload factor would be minimal.
A room full of people using their phones is what I have in mind. Remember, a node’s cache is not exclusive to just the content that’s being currently consumed. Anyway, the point was whatever’s the offload factor it would still be a net positive.
Also one can imagine if IPFS gets popular, just as ISPs collocate CDN caches in the present model, WiFi routers could come with a local node of their own. The “Web Accelerator.” And now we’re talking!
There’s opportunity for caching at many network levels, but there’s no incentive to do so with HTTP.
Yes, but for offload, all that matters is your local lan swarm.
> A room full of people using their phones is what I have in mind.
That might work to some extent, but how often do you (i) spend your time in rooms full of people and (ii) have no wifi.
> Anyway, the point was whatever’s the offload factor it would still be a net positive.
Not quite. If the offload factor is sufficiently small there is no rational reason to burn battery on it.
> Also one can imagine if IPFS gets popular, just as ISPs collocate CDN caches in the present model, WiFi routers could come with a local node of their own. The “Web Accelerator.” And now we’re talking!
Possible, but unlikely. Web cache hit ratios are abysmal, normally it's much cheaper to just up the bandwidth. A lot of business models would also have to change for the (large) and interesting content to become third party cacheable.
> There’s opportunity for caching at many network levels, but there’s no incentive to do so with HTTP.
There are also many business models where there is no incentive to cache either.
Sure, but there’s also no cost to it, if you go with the piggyback/opportunistic approach. That’s the point. It’s either net positive or just neutral. Whether the local offload is effective or not— that’s a different argument.
Anyway, the driving reason for my interest in IPFS is re-decentralization of the Web. If it can, theoretically, save some data on mobile—so much better.
What it needs, though, is simply work on mobile at least as well as HTTP. There’s no doubt IPFS has no fundamental architectural problems in that regard.
Though, full disclosure, it does have some major implementation issues at the moment.
Obviously with certain incentives, battery would become irrelevant. If this hypothetical "IPFS ratio" were as valuable as (for example) what.cd ratio, I'd have no problem carrying around car battery to continue seeding. Thankfully, I don't think it would be possible for my phone to consume that much power in a day.
Sure, cold hard cash would suffice, but imaginary Internet points won't do. But even with cash there comes a point where you would turn off IPFS, because the alternative would be to have a dead phone for the rest of the day.
> Thankfully, I don't think it would be possible for my phone to consume that much power in a day.
Perhaps not that much battery, but it is quite easy to deplete your battery in much less than a day by having your hotspot on constantly, which is what IPFS would require.
If you're not allowed to download videos, then how come they show up on my screen? That information wasn't on my device before I pressed the play button.
No, it is not. Not from a legal perspective, which is all that matters in this context. With seeding you are making things worse for yourself, as you are not merely downloading but also distributing. Seeding is also relevant with regards to downloading, as IPFS automatically starts seeding what you download.
Non-mobile devices start at $5. A considerable server is <$100. Even only modest amounts of server persistence allow for a powerful distributed net.
ipfs pin myhash