It's been several years, but in my experiments it felt plenty fast if I prefetched links at page load time so that they're already local by the time the user actually tries to follow them (sometimes I'd do this out to two hops).
I think it "failed" because people expected it to be a replacement transport layer for the existing web, minus all of the problems the existing web had, and what they got was a radically different kind of web that would have to be built more or less from scratch.
I always figured it was a matter of the existing web getting bad enough, and then we'd see adoption improve. Maybe that time is near.
What do you mean? It is alive and "well". Just extremely slow now that interest waned.
It's been several years, but in my experiments it felt plenty fast if I prefetched links at page load time so that they're already local by the time the user actually tries to follow them (sometimes I'd do this out to two hops).
I think it "failed" because people expected it to be a replacement transport layer for the existing web, minus all of the problems the existing web had, and what they got was a radically different kind of web that would have to be built more or less from scratch.
I always figured it was a matter of the existing web getting bad enough, and then we'd see adoption improve. Maybe that time is near.
oh I mean slow in terms of adoption and public interest. my bad. i expressed awfully.
But you are right on the reason it "failed". People expected web++, with a "killer app", whatever that means. Imagination is dead.
7 replies →
What's IPFS 's killer app?