> As long as there is a single party interested in content hosted on IPFS, the "IPFS Network" will persist.
I imagine that's one of the reasons why it's not ideal for archival content.
I imagine that's one of the reasons why it's not ideal for archival content.
You can pay pinning services, but what's the point if you're just going to pay someone hosting it?
I'd rather have this archived on Siacoin, Storj, Swarm or any other distributed network with actual incentives to keep things around
Which is why I find Swarm a better solution. It is literally IPFS+Ethereum with additional support for ENS lookups, deniable storage, redundant storage, etc. This allows for far better privacy and being able to compensate the loss of parts of the file, both features lacking in IPFS itself.
The current swarm testnet performs, as per my experience, better than IPFS in terms of bandwidth and latency.
The time horizon of "archival storage" probably starts at a hundred years - that will need some structure to have a likelihood of persisting for so long.
This reminds me of one of the principles of camlistore's data schema, which explicitly says that they made their schemas overly-explicit so that future digital archeologists can re-create the schema purely from examples[1].
It's a shame that camlistore feels more like a very long experiment over a polished and usable backup/archive system.
[1]: https://camlistore.org/doc/principles ; There used to be a more explicit explanation, but I couldn't find it.