stebalien changed the topic of #ipfs to: Heads Up: To talk, you need to register your nick! Announcements: go-ipfs 0.4.23 and js-ipfs 0.41 are out! Get them from dist.ipfs.io and npm respectively! | Also: #libp2p #ipfs-cluster #filecoin #ipfs-dev | IPFS, the InterPlanetary FileSystem: https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs | Logs: https://view.matrix.org/room/!yhqiEdqNjyPbxtUjzm:matrix.org/ | Forums: https://discuss.ipfs.io | Code of
cipres has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
ragecryx has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Pie-jacker875 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Pie-jacker875 has joined #ipfs
jesse22 has joined #ipfs
xcm has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
doubtingben has joined #ipfs
jesse22 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
xcm has joined #ipfs
ChristopherParke is now known as Christ4
Christ4 is now known as Christ6
Christ6 has quit [Quit: authenticating]
mauz555 has joined #ipfs
mauz555 has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
}ls{ has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
}ls{ has joined #ipfs
fleeky has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
mark[m]2 has joined #ipfs
is_null has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
jesse22 has joined #ipfs
doubtingben has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
fleeky has joined #ipfs
galaxie has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
galaxie has joined #ipfs
fleeky has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
jesse22 has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
fleeky has joined #ipfs
jesse22 has joined #ipfs
opal has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
ipfs-stackbot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
nyanz has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
RingtailedFox has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
q-u-a-n22 has joined #ipfs
airgapp has joined #ipfs
q-u-a-n2 has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
Jybz has joined #ipfs
RingtailedFox has joined #ipfs
ipfs-stackbot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
ipfs-stackbot has joined #ipfs
Jybz has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
Aranjedeath has joined #ipfs
jeeebz has joined #ipfs
chris613 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
fleeky has joined #ipfs
jeeebz has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
jeeebz has joined #ipfs
ylp has joined #ipfs
xcm has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
xcm has joined #ipfs
bengates has joined #ipfs
bengates has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
bengates has joined #ipfs
fazo96 has joined #ipfs
RBB has quit [Quit: Leaving]
isaacisback has joined #ipfs
pecastro has joined #ipfs
dethos has joined #ipfs
rendar has joined #ipfs
fleeky has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
isaacisback has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Bl4ckC0r3 has joined #ipfs
fleeky has joined #ipfs
aLeSD has joined #ipfs
fleeky has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
Bl4ckC0r3 has quit []
RingtailedFox has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Bl4ckC0r3 has joined #ipfs
fleeky has joined #ipfs
risk has joined #ipfs
vroom has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
vroom has joined #ipfs
node[m]1 has joined #ipfs
xcm has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
xcm has joined #ipfs
cparker has joined #ipfs
fleeky has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
}ls{ has joined #ipfs
jeeebz has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
cparker has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Ecran has joined #ipfs
fleeky has joined #ipfs
MDude has joined #ipfs
fleeky has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
choward has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
xcm has quit [Killed (barjavel.freenode.net (Nickname regained by services))]
xcm has joined #ipfs
choward has joined #ipfs
voryzen[m] has joined #ipfs
fleeky has joined #ipfs
_jrjsmrtn has joined #ipfs
__jrjsmrtn__ has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
voryzen[m] has left #ipfs ["User left"]
fleeky has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
_whitelogger has joined #ipfs
chris613 has joined #ipfs
Nd-969-M has joined #ipfs
fleeky has joined #ipfs
ylp has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
llorllale has joined #ipfs
janttoDiscord[m4 has joined #ipfs
fazo96 has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
cipres has joined #ipfs
fazo96 has joined #ipfs
cloaky[m] has joined #ipfs
D_ has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
airgapp has quit [Quit: airgapp]
D_ has joined #ipfs
kivutar has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
fazo96 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Nd-969-M has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
kivutar has joined #ipfs
ylp has joined #ipfs
galaxie has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
galaxie has joined #ipfs
ygrek has joined #ipfs
padoom has joined #ipfs
padoom has left #ipfs ["Leaving"]
fazo96 has joined #ipfs
mauz555 has joined #ipfs
mauz555 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
xcm has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
xcm has joined #ipfs
thelounge461 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
cipres has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
JohnFromAtl has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
JohnFromAtl has joined #ipfs
<dadepo[m]1>
what does this mean? "To prevent malicious mining, wait to upgrade to IPSE2.0" right there on https://www.ipse.io/
<dadepo[m]1>
is the service currently hosed? if so why not take it offline....or link to a better explanation
KempfCreative has joined #ipfs
kivutar has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
kivutar has joined #ipfs
aispark has joined #ipfs
KeiraT has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
tryte_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
joocain2 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
galaxie has quit [Write error: Broken pipe]
xcm has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
xcm has joined #ipfs
KeiraT has joined #ipfs
tryte has joined #ipfs
aLeSD has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
aLeSD_ has joined #ipfs
galaxie has joined #ipfs
joocain2 has joined #ipfs
jcea has joined #ipfs
fleeky has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
bengates_ has joined #ipfs
bengates_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
bengates has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
bengates_ has joined #ipfs
fleeky has joined #ipfs
PyHedgehog has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
ipfs-stackbot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
ipfs-stackbot has joined #ipfs
<TraderOne[m]>
BTFS seems to be mostly IPFS compatible but bootstrap servers are not
jesse22 has joined #ipfs
kivutar has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
jesse22 has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
fleeky has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
kivutar has joined #ipfs
<isomorph70[m]>
HI trying to use ipfs to distribute a large dataset ~ 38GB, a dir with lots of nested dirs. ipfs-pack seem to slow to a halt after an hour and 4 GB. Anyone else had that problem?
mauz555 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<lordcirth>
ipfs-pack was last updated in 2018
<lordcirth>
isomorph70[m], can you not use ipfs add directly?
<isomorph70[m]>
I tried with ipfs add yesterday, but it also stopped while I was sleeping. So that is why I tried with ipfs-pack.
misuto has quit [Quit: Ping timeout (120 seconds)]
misuto has joined #ipfs
<lordcirth>
isomorph70[m], crashed, or hung? And what IPFS version?
patatahooligan[m has joined #ipfs
<isomorph70[m]>
ipfs-pack is currently hanging, might be a memory swapping problem.
<isomorph70[m]>
running ipfs version 0.4.23
<lordcirth>
isomorph70[m], I would try 0.5rc1 and enabling the new buzhash chunker
<lordcirth>
Says it's "orders of magnitude faster"
<isomorph70[m]>
okey I will take a look.
fleeky has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
<RubenKelevra>
Well, faster than the old rolling chunker. But not faster than the default chunking with 256 KByte.
storms_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<RubenKelevra>
If you want to speed up the add, you can use blake 256 as a hash algorithm, but both has the implication that the data ends up having a different hash sum than with the default settings. So if someone adds the same file(s) somewhere else, they will not be seen as the same files by the network.
<RubenKelevra>
You could try to enlarge the chunk size to 1 MB, this reduces the overhead and you could try to use 'trickle' instead of 'balanced' if your data doesn't require random access.
<RubenKelevra>
note: some of the features are experimental, but since you're using an RC version of some alpha software - you're obviously open for experiments :)
MDude has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
MDude has joined #ipfs
<RubenKelevra>
@isomorph70:matrix.org: :)
kivutar has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
fleeky has joined #ipfs
kivutar has joined #ipfs
fleeky has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
mauz555 has joined #ipfs
mauz555 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
aispark_ has joined #ipfs
mauz555 has joined #ipfs
Ecran has quit [Quit: Going offline, see ya! (www.adiirc.com)]
bengates_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
bengates has joined #ipfs
kivutar has joined #ipfs
RingtailedFox has joined #ipfs
bengates has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
fazo96 has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
ylp has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
xcm has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
ljmf00_ has joined #ipfs
ljmf00 has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
xcm has joined #ipfs
opal has joined #ipfs
RingtailedFox has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
RingtailedFox has joined #ipfs
noresult has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
themsay has joined #ipfs
amphitheatres has joined #ipfs
noresult has joined #ipfs
kivutar has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
cparker has joined #ipfs
cipres has joined #ipfs
mauz555 has joined #ipfs
opal has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
mauz555 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
fleeky has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
kivutar has joined #ipfs
opal has joined #ipfs
fleeky has joined #ipfs
aispark_ has joined #ipfs
mauz555 has joined #ipfs
emmanuelrosa[m] has joined #ipfs
NightFoxDiscord[ has joined #ipfs
<isomorph70[m]>
I made some speed test with different hash and chunkers, neither made the big difference, but then I tried with the -n option, that deactivates the disk write, then the time jumped to minutes instead for hours. It seem that it is the disk IO that is the bottleneck. Anyway to tell ipfs, that is should wait writing until it have a large chunk of data to write?
<hhes>
hi, I need to make an index which should be updated by all the users of the network freely. it's simple sha256->IPFS merkle map. is it something doable with IPFS alone or should I use blockchain?
PyHedgehog has joined #ipfs
kivutar has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
RBB has joined #ipfs
<isomorph70[m]>
<RubenKelevra "Well, faster than the old rollin"> figure out that the bottleneck is writing to the disk.
<isomorph70[m]>
<lordcirth "isomorph70, I would try 0.5rc1 a"> Didn't help since the main problem is writing to the disk, so I have to figure out to do lesser of that.
gimzmoe has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
kivutar has joined #ipfs
Ecran has joined #ipfs
<lordcirth>
isomorph70[m], this is all on a HDD? Are both the ipfs store and the input files on the same HDD?
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
isomorph70: look into the bloom filter in the ipfs cnfig
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
isomorph70: look into the bloom filter in the ipfs config
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
it might not entirely prevent disk writes, but it will certainly help in some cases
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
also what datastore are you using? if you're using the default flatfs or w.e. its called you'll do a ton of disk writes
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
try swapping this out fo badgerds
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
hhes: unless you have a very good reason for using blockchain, dont. Generally speaking if you have to ask the question "should i use blockchain for this?" the answer is almost always a resounding no. Use IPNS
<hhes>
bonedaddyDiscor4: I'd hate to use blockchain, I really dislike this technology, but it seems to be the only option
gimzmoe has joined #ipfs
<hhes>
IPNS does not allow trustless source of new mapping
<lordcirth>
hhes, does this network need to have an arbitrary number of anonymous peers, coming and going?
<hhes>
yep
<lordcirth>
And do they need to be able to issue writes to this index, and there can only be 1 authoritative index? And why?
Nd-969-M has joined #ipfs
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
well neither does the blockchain. Just because its a blockchain doesn't mean its trustless. You would probably have to use some sort of smart contracts to store the mappings you want (perhaps ENS) but its not trustless, you have to explicitly add in logic to allow anyone to update the smart contracts. You will be delegating some form of trust that says "you are authorized to update these records"
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
unless you tie in some form of proof of work i guess like the way BTC does, but you can do something like what Tezos does with ndoe identity generation
<hhes>
I don't say it's supposed to be one authoritative index. but just like in IPFS, a user should be able to ask the network if anybody knows how does sha256:x resolve without trusting its peers
<lordcirth>
I think trustless in this context means that anyone can generate their own keypair and join the network
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
and only accept records that have a sufficient amount of "work" put into generating them
<lordcirth>
hhes, if you don't need to have only one "true" version of the index, then you don't need a blockchain
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
Well then IPNS already does that
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
> I think trustless in this context means that anyone can generate their own keypair and join the network
Adbray has joined #ipfs
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
> I don't say it's supposed to be one authoritative index. but just like in IPFS, a user should be able to ask the network if anybody knows how does sha256:x resolve without trusting its peers
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
IPNS basically does exactly this, you cna have some sort of pubsub topic to allow distribution of records
<hhes>
lordcirth: input hash X always resolves to output hash Y
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
> I don't say it's supposed to be one authoritative index. but just like in IPFS, a user should be able to ask the network if anybody knows how does sha256:x resolve without trusting its peers
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
IPNS basically does exactly this, you cna have some sort of pubsub topic to allow distribution of new records
<lordcirth>
bonedaddyDiscor4, your replies are rather clutter-y on IRC
<hhes>
but there's no function that'd calculate hash Y without knowing data under that hash ofc
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
lordcirth: 🤷♀️
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
on discord so thats probably why
<lordcirth>
hhes, I'm still not sure what exactly you want. Could you walk me through the desired user experience process?
<hhes>
lordcirth: an user gets a list of file hashes. due to how merkledag works, I can't just fetch those hashes from IPFS (unless I don't chunk it, but that wouldn't be the best for the network), so I need to figure out a process to get the root of dag based on file hash
<hhes>
is there any IPFS mechanics that'd help me with that?
<lordcirth>
hhes, so, you want to be able to go from a normal, eg sha256, hash of the file, and find the hash of the IPFS-chunked root?
<hhes>
basically, yes
<lordcirth>
Ok, and why?
AlexShadow has joined #ipfs
<hhes>
because that's what I know about that file
<lordcirth>
Why do you know only the direct hash of the file that you want, while also knowing that it's hosted on IPFS?
<hhes>
because it isn't hosted on IPFS in the first place, but I want to move those files to IFPS. all existing solutions for that are based on simple sha256 of files and it's something unchangeable easily
<lordcirth>
hhes, ok, so you add all the files to IPFS. How were you distributing the original hashes to clients, and why can't you just distribute the IPFS links instead via that channel?
<hhes>
because I don't control information distribution
<lordcirth>
Ah, ok. So you have files distributed by trusted source A, and you (B) wish to reupload these files for people (C) who trust A but not you
<lordcirth>
Eg, an Ubuntu ISO
<hhes>
yes
<hhes>
that's exactly it
<lordcirth>
Ok, so this makes sense. Well, you can tell people the IPFS link, and they can download it, then check the hash for themselves. This doesn't require them to trust you, but does require them to hear you / know you exist.
<hhes>
and I become the centralised point of the infrastructure
<hhes>
I'd rather let people distribute those hashes between themselves
JohnFromAtl has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<lordcirth>
You don't have to be centralized. Many people could download the ISOs, upload them into IPFS, and share the links
fleeky has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<lordcirth>
At most, you could try to convince people to settle on a single set of ipfs add args so they deduplicate
<hhes>
but I need that sharing part
<hhes>
how would it be implemented using decentralised technologies? preferably using only IPFS
rendar has quit []
<isomorph70[m]>
<hhes "and I become the centralised poi"> This is the Byzantine Generals Problem.
<isomorph70[m]>
<hhes "but I need that sharing part"> You have to have A sign a declaration that he make the file with this hash. The user then have to check the signature and the hash of the file.
<lordcirth>
hhes, you could make a website using IPNS that maps filenames/hashes to IPFS links
<lordcirth>
And host the code to do so on the page. Then others can clone what you do and host it themselves, and/or just pin your site
<lordcirth>
There is no easy way to have a decentralized network confirm that hash X and hash Y resolve to the same file; the file would have to be downloaded and hashed
aispark_ has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
fleeky has joined #ipfs
cparker has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<hhes>
lordcirth: the problem is that I'd like to allow the others to add mappings
<lordcirth>
hhes, well, the short answer is that you can't practically have a single correct index without a centralized component
<lordcirth>
But you could accept submissions from others, having your node download and verify them before adding them, and you could make it really easy for others to clone your setup
Soo_Slow has joined #ipfs
fleeky has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
Soo_Slow has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
Soo_Slow has joined #ipfs
<swedneck>
git repo?
<swedneck>
people could make pull requests, and fork it if they want their own version
<lordcirth>
That too, though they wanted it hosted on IPFS itself - how well does that work these days?
<swedneck>
well you can just publish the files
<swedneck>
say the git repo contains just a simple html file, listing all the CIDs, you can just publish that file
kivutar has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
ZaZ has joined #ipfs
mateusbs17 is now known as mateusbs17|away
mauz555 has quit []
fleeky has joined #ipfs
kivutar has joined #ipfs
<hhes>
swedneck: I need to figure out something for computers to use, not humans themselves
<hhes>
but a git repo is a nice idea
<hhes>
I think I'll end up writing a totally centralised microservice
fleeky has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
JohnFromAtl has joined #ipfs
gimzmoe has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
AlexShadow has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
gimzmoe has joined #ipfs
cparker has joined #ipfs
riemann has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
fleeky has joined #ipfs
Adbray has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
gimzmoe has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
mowcat has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
gimzmoe has joined #ipfs
LinusCDE has joined #ipfs
cparker has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
risk has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
fleeky has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<TraderOne[m]>
How many connections you need for public gateway to reliable fetching files?
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
depends what you mean by fetching files. Fetching files from the network? in theory the more you are connected to, the faster you'll be able to discover the content
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
in practice it's not always true though and will depend on *who* you're connected to
kivutar has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<TraderOne[m]>
I have 3000 connections and if I start another node and add unique file it needs 15 minutes for gateway to discover it.
<bonedaddyDiscor4>
If you connect the nodes you'll reduce the time because they'll be able to discover each other more quickly
cparker has joined #ipfs
<lordcirth>
TraderOne[m], this should also be improved by 0.5
<lordcirth>
There have been major improvements to content routing speed
<TraderOne[m]>
I read that d.Tube switched from ipfs to btfs (based on old ipfs) and this has even worse network search performance. btfs gateway never found my unique files.
<lordcirth>
IPFS is not fast enough yet for many use cases. Hopefully 0.5 will make a big difference
<TraderOne[m]>
But bittorrent DHT is quick enough to find other node with unique torrent in 30s to 2 minutes.
kivutar has joined #ipfs
<lordcirth>
bittorrent is simpler and has been around a lot longer to work out these implementation details
<TraderOne[m]>
IPFS is acceptable if file exists in many copies in the network. Pages like ipfs.io loads really fast.
<lordcirth>
Yes, ipfs.io is easy to find :)
<swedneck>
anyone know how i'd configure nginx to redirect anything.ip(f|n)s.localhost to port 8080?
<TraderOne[m]>
Problem with current IPFS is that it is openning too many connections, killing home router.
<lordcirth>
Huh, I guess everyone updating to 0.4.23 must have made a big difference already
<RubenKelevra>
Trader One: why? I'm having no issues with that. I mean 600 connections is nothing, if you think about that - when you got like 200 clients in a network running ipfs, than it might be an issue.
<lordcirth>
I don't think it's my router - I think I get throttled upstream
<lordcirth>
600 connections, no traffic, killed my whole house's internet
<TraderOne[m]>
its not 600 connections, its about 3500 during peaks until they are gc
<lordcirth>
But default HighWater is 600, isn't it?
<lordcirth>
I had to reduce to 300 to keep my internet working
<RubenKelevra>
Trader One: you know that you can change the settings? 🤔
<lordcirth>
But this was all on 0.4.22
<RubenKelevra>
My ipfs client ususally keeps 50-100 connections open
ZaZ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<RubenKelevra>
> But this was all on 0.4.22
<RubenKelevra>
Yeah, I've read about major changes on 0.5.0
fleeky has joined #ipfs
<RubenKelevra>
lordcirth: can you share some details on your internet connection? 🤔
<TraderOne[m]>
default in 0.5 is 600to900
<lordcirth>
RubenKelevra, I pay for 15Mbit/s down, 1Mbit/s up. I usually have 60ms latency to servers in the US.
<lordcirth>
I am in Canada
<lordcirth>
Practically speaking it is rare for me to get more than 8Mbit/s
<RubenKelevra>
lordcirth: I was more thinking about the type of connection: Do you have DSlite or a public IPv4 on your routers' wan port?
<RubenKelevra>
Which router do you use?
<TraderOne[m]>
bittorrent clients usually use 200 connections to avoid killing people's routers.
<RubenKelevra>
lordcirth: do you use some kind of traffic shaping?
<lordcirth>
No, QoS is turned off
kivutar has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<RubenKelevra>
lordcirth: do you know what bufferbloat is?
<lordcirth>
Yes, I do
<lordcirth>
I did have QoS turned on on my previous router, though
<lordcirth>
And had similar problems. But that one was slow.
<RubenKelevra>
lordcirth: soooo you're not doing something actively against bufferbloat at the moment, do you? 🤔
<lordcirth>
Not at the moment. I will try enabling it
<RubenKelevra>
I would recommend cake, if openwrt has a simple way to configure it
<RubenKelevra>
lordcirth: do you use quic?
<lordcirth>
I had quic enabled earlier, but it hardly ever connected to anyone with it.
<RubenKelevra>
Quic might have some trouble at the moment finding the right speed without blowing up the network buffer. *Might* because I haven't tested it.
<RubenKelevra>
So it could be already fine. :)
<RubenKelevra>
lordcirth: can you check if your node is advertising your public IPv4 properly? :)
<lordcirth>
RubenKelevra, the previous install was. I tried everything on 0.4.22. However, now that I have started up 0.4.23, and presumably many others have upgraded, it seems to be working much better
<lordcirth>
I did briefly try 0.4.23 right when it came out, but presumably not enough others had upgraded
kivutar has joined #ipfs
rho has joined #ipfs
<RubenKelevra>
lordcirth: 0.4.22 shouldn't be used anymore due to some pretty nasty bugs
RingtailedFox has joined #ipfs
<lordcirth>
RubenKelevra, yes, I know, but at the time, it was the latest
<RubenKelevra>
lordcirth: is `ipfs id` listing your public ip? :)
<RubenKelevra>
> RubenKelevra, yes, I know, but at the time, it was the latest
<RubenKelevra>
Ah, I understood that wrong, sorry :)
moinmoin has joined #ipfs
skywavesurfer has joined #ipfs
<moinmoin>
Hi all
<moinmoin>
got questions about the `ipfs.dag.put` api
<moinmoin>
I am following the proto.school tutorials and I noticed that when I add content, I get the cid, but not in the format I thought it will be in
<moinmoin>
for example this bafyreic5ndfk2yj4vr7pdhk4n435hxr522faalcse2ls4ukzddr7d5qxhi
<swedneck>
oh wow ipns publishing seems a lot faster
dwilliams has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
<moinmoin>
so started watching the video...got two more questions...won't ipfs be generating a lot of garbage with the immutability? Also I can imagine a use case where I want to share a content to someone and I want them to see the changes I made without having to get new cids...I guess I will have answers to these questions by the time I am done with the
<moinmoin>
video
dwilliams has joined #ipfs
RingtailedFox has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<voker57>
there is no garbage if nobody shares it
<voker57>
and IPNS is for your use case
<moinmoin>
i see
moinmoin has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<RubenKelevra>
moinmoin: if somebody downloaded the file `b` from you from the old CID of the folder, he will provide this file also for everyone who got the new folder with both files.
iczero has joined #ipfs
iczero has quit [Excess Flood]
iczero has joined #ipfs
cipres has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
dethos has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
Ecran has quit [Quit: Going offline, see ya! (www.adiirc.com)]
doubtingben has joined #ipfs
doubtingben has quit [Remote host closed the connection]