Hi, my first time doing part of this forum, I always read, but this time I feel that I have to comment a few things.
First off, I want to make it clear that I don’t have an advanced technical background; I’m more of an investor and entrepreneur aiming to create some startups, leveraging unique business models made possible by the promised technology of Blockchain on the IC and current infrastructure. I’m someone who’s passionate about reading and staying informed on cryptography, and I try to study all the technical aspects of the Internet Computer (IC) to at least have a basic but notable understanding.
With that said, I apologize in advance if what I’m about to say doesn’t make sense, and I hope you correct me by explaining in more detail.
As I understand it, you propose to manage data on the IC more efficiently by, instead of including the data (payload) inside a block (making it on-chain) - and as I understand, the limit is 3 MB per block -, now processing it off-chain and storing it on IPFS, where only the hashes would be included in the blocks as such.
If I’ve understood correctly, this would fundamentally affect the added value of the IC, as where does the ownership of your data stand? Wouldn’t this make IC the same as Flux, Akash, and all those other projects that lack on-chain computing or storage capabilities? I’ve also researched these projects before betting on the IC, and my perception is that they do the same for data processing, using hashes and storing data off-chain. Wouldn’t we be doing the same as those projects we criticize, where they store their NFTs on IPFS linked by a hash?
If this is the idea or solution for this current limitation, I want to express my discontent, as this would go against the spirit and vision of the ICP and what all of us, both investors and entrepreneurs, (maybe developers?) aim to achieve: a vision where all web 2.0 software has to be rewritten and adapted to the IC, where all data must be processed on-chain. This is what we are selling to the public. Therefore, I believe that from the community and investors’ perspective, we would not support such an idea.
Although I understand it may require a lot of resources and R&D to find a definitive solution, I think the right path is to continue revolutionizing the industry, not just innovating. We should always be at the forefront with cutting-edge technology.
I don’t think rushing to take the easier paths, as the competition has, will turn us into the crypto cloud we all dream of. You mention it could be an optimization, but I’m not sure it’s healthy to take the quick and “easy” path, even when the solution fail to meet the promised expectations of a completely on-chain world.