Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner. It is now read-only.

P2P WORM Storage? #43

Closed
poing opened this issue Sep 17, 2015 · 2 comments
Closed

P2P WORM Storage? #43

poing opened this issue Sep 17, 2015 · 2 comments
Labels

Comments

@poing
Copy link

poing commented Sep 17, 2015

I noticed that altered files generate a new hash. Limiting the ability to modify content, all links to any new content will need to be updated.

With the exception of the mutability of the peerID namespace, is IPFS essentially a P2P from of WORM storage? Write Once/Read Many

The Freenet Project faced issue with the same type of immutability, resulting in multiple key types to point to updated/updateable content.

@jbenet
Copy link
Contributor

jbenet commented Sep 17, 2015

Though today is just one per node, you'll be able to have as many mutable keys as you want. Working in it.


Sent from Mailbox

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Brian LaVallee notifications@github.com
wrote:

I noticed that altered files generate a new hash. Limiting the ability to modify content, all links to any new content will need to be updated.
With the exception of the mutability of the peerID namespace, is IPFS essentially a P2P from of WORM storage? Write Once/Read Many

The Freenet Project faced issue with the same type of immutability, resulting in multiple key types to point to updated/updateable content.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#43

@flyingzumwalt
Copy link
Contributor

flyingzumwalt commented May 23, 2017

This issue was moved to https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/p2p-worm-storage/466

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants