Michael Niedermayer (12022-08-13): > what iam a bit "upset" about is that running a IPFS node is presented as > if that was more private than using a gateway.
I do not think it was suggested that it was more private and/or secure. A more accurate and detailed statement of the issue is that both solution raise concerns about security and privacy, but not the same, and users must be allowed a chance to make an informed decision between using one, the other or none at all depending on their situation. Furthermore, this protocol has not been around virtually forever, we cannot assume users just already know about these issues and will think of them as soon as they see ipfs://. It is an argument for this to NOT just work out-of-the-box and instead require some setting up by users. And if users search on the web and take any random gateway they find, or copy-paste a command-line they found somewhere instead, it is nor our problem, because the web has been around virtually forever, and people should know better by now than trusting anything they find. As for what to do now, I suggest we approve Derek's patch removing the default gateway, and discuss the rest after. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
