159
The distributed replacement for Sci-Hub
(github.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
159 points (97.0% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
55056 readers
477 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Can confirm. Meddled with it a little bit a while ago trying to productively use it to host Lutris installer files. It's an absolute mess; slow, unreliable, without proper documentation and a really bad default node application.
Also it managed to get our server temporarily banned by the hosting provider since the "sane default settings" includes the node doing a whole sweep of your local subnet on all NICs respectively, knocking at multiple ports of every device it can find. Because the expected environment of a node apparently is your home network… a default setting that caused problems for many people for many years by now.
A project like in this post might benefit from looking at more modern/mature reimplementations of IPFS' concept, like Veilid (which would also offer additional features as well).
Just looked up Veilid seems to similar to I2P, but it is still in development and can't be used for now. Also I agree that IPFS is horrible and not just the setup, the developer themselves are against piracy. What is the point of a decentralised network that picks and chooses what it hosts? BitTorrent, Tor, Freenet, and I2P never did this as far as I know.
DCMA Denylist https://github.com/ipfs-inactive/faq/issues/36#issuecomment-140567411
I think you're all making look a bit worse than it is. I downloaded a few PDFs via IPFS and it worked for me. And I was happy it provided me with what I needed at that time. I can't comment on reliability or other nuances. It also was slow in my case, but I took that as the usual trade-off. Usually, you either get speed or anonymity, not both. And there are valid use-cases for denylists. For example viruses, malware, CSAM and spam. I'd rather not have my node spread those. It's complicated. And I also talk in public like that. I think what matters is what you do and implement, not if you say you comply with regulation and the DMCA...
Thanks for the links, I'll have a look.
What are talking about, IPFS isn't anonymity network, it is similar to torrenting everyone can see your ip.
I thought it had that factored in. But yeah, if it's bittorrent, just as a CDN, this isn't anonymous. I'll look it up.
When I first heard of IPFS, I also thought it was anoymous, but I researched and it just like bittorrent everyone can see your IP. You have to use VPN.
https://discuss.ipfs.tech/t/how-to-make-ipfs-node-ip-address-anonymous/12359/3
If you want an anonymous P2P try freenet or I2P. There is also a new anonymous network currently being developed called Vailid which seems promising.
So use an anonymyzing network overlay if you want anonymity.