This is a nice use case for IPFS.
People `ipfs pin` the images to satisfy their data lust, and instantly become part of the growing swarm of computers which are now serving the content to new visitors.
People `ipfs pin` the images to satisfy their data lust, and instantly become part of the growing swarm of computers which are now serving the content to new visitors.
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:e371e76f57923f555c0585910420137cd615911a
Not that it matters, my point stands. The cost exists and different solutions put it in different places.
It also works better for popular files because the professionals generally have great bandwidth and good peering.
There are a bunch of other benefits as well, such as access to an api that allows skynet pages/apps to upload and download. For something like this you wouldn't use those endpoints but if you wanted to make say a decentralized blogger, you could use those endpoints to upload posts that users write.
IPFS doesn't automatically spread whatever you put into your client, so you should never rely on others to randomly host your content for you. In fact, if you start a default IPFS node, add your content then turn it off again, no one is gonna have the content you added.
Would have been interesting to hear a fair/impartial comparison between Skynet and IPFS but your misunderstanding of IPFS is now evident so maybe someone else can fill in the gaps?