this would also need to be hosted and could be taken down. This would need to be solved, and I think the only way to solve it is to have a battery of centralized ipfs servers mirroring each other, which defeats the 'fully distributed' setupĢ. Previous examples of content-based addressing showed that little-accessed content tends to disappear as nodes go offline over the years.

yes, ipfs could solve that, but it relies on people hoting content. If one team's library set up goes down, you can use another's.ġ. No one centralized team, no reliance on DNS. Library teams can publish metadata DBs and content via torrents, too, for long-term/disaster-recovery/archival purposes. For ease of access, people can run websites that preclude the need to setup your own desktop app / download libraries.Ħ. There could also be servers that aggregate pinning info to make sure no gaps are there.ĥ.

The desktop app can also double as an IPFS host, allowing users to choose specific files to pin or simply allocate an amount of space for the purpose (100 GB, etc). Users can search for content via the latest library metadata files, locally on their desktop. The libraries can be combined together and be searched easily on the client side. A desktop app can pull multiple RSS feeds for multiple libraries. Each team can have their own upload portal.Ĥ. The latest library files can be published via RSS. There can be multiple teams, each with their own policies. Teams of volunteers assemble and publish the library metadata DB files. The DB would contain IPFS hashes, book names, authors, etc.ģ. Library metadata can be packaged up into a SQLite DB file. Files are stored in a distributed fashion and referred to via their content hash. We already have the tools to solve this.ġ. Current shadow libraries (zlib, libgen, scihub) suffer from centralized data hosting and opaque librarians/custodians (who modify metadata and gate inclusion/exclusion of content).

Google z library