Hacker News Reader

Just use a public key as your address, and make signed pointers to the actual content. That's how people have been solving the update problem for ages.

Naming things continues to be one of the hard problems in computer science.

View on HN

Then it's no longer content-addressing. It's now "public key plus a signed pointer referencing a name-that-has-yet-to-be-specified" addressing.

I think that's a fine road to go down for addressing data, but it's not content addressing.

Why not? If you include the public key with the signed pointer, then you can define a "hash" function that returns just the pubkey (yes with collisions, but not in a way that matters) and it is content-addressing. After all, you are literally addressing by content in this scheme.

What is actually the difference in any way that matters? What property does content addressing have that this doesn't.

I mean a content hash that redirects if it is deprecated?

And that's exactly what IPNS does. You can also use DNS with DNSLink.

Its what everyone does. The technique predates ipfs and friends by a long time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com