a friendly reminder that (a) ipfs is only as alive as there are seeders and (b) seeders ips are public just like bittorrent

There was a recent Cult of the Dead Cow release that claims "encrypt all the things, Tor but for phones" or some such but I haven't studied it to know how much is aspirational https://gitlab.com/veilid/veilid#welcome-to-veilid https://twitter.com/VeilidNetwork https://nitter.net/VeilidNetwork

This caveat is the same reason I can't really support PeerTube. P2P shifts copyright liability onto individual users.

Okay, maybe you could always technically sue someone for watching a YouTube video, but it was practically way more difficult by having to go through Google first to get an IP. P2P skips that step because you dox yourself whenever you use it.

yes, but checkout the redundancy that filecoin nodes offer, they basically pin IPFS for free, not intentionally its just turning into a killer app for filecoin

https://web3.storage

competes with the web 2.0 SaaS pinning services like Pinata

I readily admit I haven't looked super deeply into Filecoin but I thought they were trying to cryptocurrency the pinning problem, and thus not "for free" right?

filecoin has a coin. I don't know where the burden is for consumers.

a third party service https://web3.storage built a file storage tool on the permissionless network that uses filecoin nodes to pin IPFS links, so it doesn't matter? this third party service tries to make a business model and has overhead costs, and that currently involves a 5gb free tier with unlimited bandwidth. Used to be 100gb. Still cheaper than Pinata and other pinning services that don't use filecoin. And all of that is cheaper than company run centralized file storage because those charge by bandwidth and cant be compared.

This discussion isn't really about whether the service provider has costs, its about a solution for consumers the same way we would talk about a VC subsidized centralized service that happens to be free, for now.