Hacker News Reader

Comment by mey | Hacker News Reader

The block chain may be able to validate a license to a copy of the game, but that doesn't encompass hosting/delivery of content. The actual content of NFTs, tiny PNGs, are still hosted behind a URL. Putting 60+GB AAA titles out there for all time isn't something a Blockchain itself can solve.

I also don't know how IPFS people would feel if they became the CDN for commercial software.

View on HN

I think it's reasonable to believe that third party CDNs would pop up in the world.

The feature would be that it's structurally decentralized in a way that decouples content creators from delivery.

What would be the business model for the CDNs? If they're paid by the publisher, you're back to the game vanishing when it's no longer profitable for them to provide it. If they're paid by the user, this feels a worse user experience than the centralised status quo of steam.

It doesn't decouple them. The cdn still needs rights to share the content from the creator. Why would the creator give anyone else the right than say steam? So you would have a NFT of your game that only works in one platform since others cannot distribute it.

Torrents are a thing, but still I won't give my bandwidth for something I paid good money for. Just no.

I would if it meant paying 30% less

>CDN for commercial software

What does that have to do with IPFS? IPFS doesn't really care what's on top of it.

All of the prospective "stores" can host their own IPFS nodes and contribute to the bandwidth availability, just like how a CDN works.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com