Hacker News Reader

Comment by nootropicat | Hacker News Reader

No, we don't. IPFS guarantees that the owner can host their own NFT forever (there are multiple pinning services if they don't want to run a server). This is the best possible model. If even the owner doesn't give a shit, why should anybody else?

It's true that most NFT buyers have zero idea how this works. In 2 years multiple shitty NFTs are going to turn into 404. This is fine - people will learn to only buy images that use ipfs.

View on HN

>IPFS guarantees that the owner can host their own NFT forever

I always thought IPFS just as a BitTorrent but with blockchainy tech stack.

But if it can indeed guarantee that my content would always be available, then IPFS is the answer.

BitTorrent also guarantees that your content would always be available – if you're hosting it.

Your response is different from what I posted. You can always pin the image on your ipfs node and it's going to resolve to the same, unique, hash (well, unless preimage resistance of sha2 is broken...) allowing everyone in the world to download it. That doesn't mean it guarantees availability - nothing does - someone has to host it.

Ultimately, the owner has to host it, or pay someone to host it, or hope someone else hosts it. Although nfts are small enough that any semi-popular ones may stay alive potentially forever as long as someone, somewhere, hosts it on an ipfs node. Potentially long forgotten by literally everyone alive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com