TY - GEN
T1 - Degrees of Decentralized Freedom
T2 - 9th Network Traffic Measurement and Analysis Conference, TMA 2025
AU - Wu, Zhengyu
AU - Lin, Brian
AU - Nikiforakis, Nick
AU - Balasubramanian, Aruna
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 IFIP.
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - Decentralized storage platforms distribute control across individual peers, thus reducing reliance on a single entity and mitigating common vulnerabilities of centralized storage systems. In this paper, we compare the architecture and operation of four popular decentralized storage platforms: IPFS, Filecoin, Swarm, and Storj. Our study reveals significant implementation differences in four key aspects: data routing, data persistence, incentivization mechanisms, and resource requirements. These architectural decisions directly influence network characteristics, performance metrics, and economic sustainability. We collect comprehensive snapshots of the entire network to analyze network properties including peer uptime, geographical distribution, and network availability. Our analysis shows that while IPFS maintains the largest user base, it exhibits the lowest peer uptime due to lack of incentivization, with 50% of peers online for less than 4 days. In contrast, incentivized platforms exhibited median peer uptimes around 80-96% of the study period. We found considerable performance variations that directly correlate with implementation choices. Storj, with its centralized data routing architecture, achieves performance nearly on par with centralized solutions like Google Drive. In contrast, Swarm showed the slowest performance metrics with its full commitment to decentralization. Finally, our analysis reveals that cryptocurrency price fluctuations significantly influence participation and cost, suggesting potential sustainability challenges in these decentralized storage platforms.
AB - Decentralized storage platforms distribute control across individual peers, thus reducing reliance on a single entity and mitigating common vulnerabilities of centralized storage systems. In this paper, we compare the architecture and operation of four popular decentralized storage platforms: IPFS, Filecoin, Swarm, and Storj. Our study reveals significant implementation differences in four key aspects: data routing, data persistence, incentivization mechanisms, and resource requirements. These architectural decisions directly influence network characteristics, performance metrics, and economic sustainability. We collect comprehensive snapshots of the entire network to analyze network properties including peer uptime, geographical distribution, and network availability. Our analysis shows that while IPFS maintains the largest user base, it exhibits the lowest peer uptime due to lack of incentivization, with 50% of peers online for less than 4 days. In contrast, incentivized platforms exhibited median peer uptimes around 80-96% of the study period. We found considerable performance variations that directly correlate with implementation choices. Storj, with its centralized data routing architecture, achieves performance nearly on par with centralized solutions like Google Drive. In contrast, Swarm showed the slowest performance metrics with its full commitment to decentralization. Finally, our analysis reveals that cryptocurrency price fluctuations significantly influence participation and cost, suggesting potential sustainability challenges in these decentralized storage platforms.
KW - content addressing
KW - decentralized storage
KW - Interplanetary file system
KW - peer-to-peer system
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105013618553
U2 - 10.23919/TMA66427.2025.11096968
DO - 10.23919/TMA66427.2025.11096968
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:105013618553
T3 - TMA 2025 - Proceedings of the 9th Network Traffic Measurement and Analysis Conference
BT - TMA 2025 - Proceedings of the 9th Network Traffic Measurement and Analysis Conference
PB - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.
Y2 - 10 June 2025 through 13 June 2025
ER -