Threefold vs IPFS

IPFS seems to achieve similar results to the ThreeFold Grid when we believe the descriptions and features. What are the differences?

Pretty interesting topic! :slight_smile: I would love as well to know more about the differences.

The biggest difference is that the ThreeFold Grid provides both compute and storage capacity, while IPFS provides only storage.

IPFS is something like a next generation bit torrent that’s designed for data persistence, network efficiency, and ultimately taking information to colonies on other planets some day. There are many interesting and even fairly mainstream projects running on IPFS already, with the network currently operating on a volunteer basis. The sister project Filecoin is more comparable to TF in that it uses a token to provide a market for resources, “adding the missing incentive layer to IPFS”. IPFS and Filecoin are seen as complementary to dapps running on smart contract platforms like Ethereum where it is cost prohibitive to store large files, but Filecoin seems to be targeting the cloud storage market at large.

ThreeFold, on the other hand, offers a complete cloud computing solution which storage is one part of. So, for example, when Filecoin recommends hosting your Filecoin node on Digital Ocean if you don’t have your own server, ThreeFold is a direct alternative there. I don’t know enough to speak to the technical distinctions between the protocols, in terms of speed and overhead to achieve redundancy, or how efficient running them on top of each other would be, but it’s very possible that the two projects will coexist as parts of our future internet.

You can only mine Filecoin on the testnet at the moment, while TF is now processing workloads live on its mainnet. Farming on TF requires just booting a Zero OS image and providing network connectivity, while mining Filecoin has more complex options, requirements, and setup.

4 Likes

Thank you! :smiley: I believe they can definitely work together! :wink: