Hacker News Reader

Comment by chockchocschoir | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure anyone would be surprised that IPFS's performance would be worse than FTP or any other protocol when it comes to transfers between two (or three) hosts.

The benefits of distributes systems becomes bigger the larger the network. Replicate the same results with 100 nodes and we'll see.

I still think torrents would be even more efficient though, than both FTP and IPFS.

View on HN

>The benefits of distributes systems becomes bigger the larger the network. Replicate the same results with 100 nodes and we'll see.

That's true. I would be interested in an experiment to show how many IPFS host would be needed to reach parity to FTP and other protocols.

I'm also wondering if IPFS can't be integrated in CDNs.

Isn't Hypercore (and its predecessor Dat), essentially Bittorrent + version control?

https://hypercore-protocol.org/

Is it possible to create an IPFS-based torrent network?

IPFS has very similar features as BitTorrent, you can remove torrent from that sentence and it would mean the same.

You may be interested in BTFS, which is elements of IPFS but using BitTorrent as the protocol.

basically, if you don't look too hard, ipfs is bittorrent improved.

The structures were cleaned up and given a shave, the trackers removed in favor of just putting everyone on the dht.

Bittorrent's trackerless Swarm protocol, and IPFS, both use Kademlia DHTs.

So another way to look at it, is that every modern p2p protocol is just eMule :)

IPFS is BitTorrent v2 but somewhat older and worse

Not worse, worser

One certainly can't get much more worse than worser.

"much worser", perhaps?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com