IPFS is a discovery layer, not storage. It provides content-addressed data retrieval but does not guarantee persistence, requiring expensive Filecoin pinning services for long-term availability, which defeats the 'decentralized' promise for regulated data.
healthcare-and-privacy-on-blockchain
Blog
Why IPFS is a Scalability Mirage for Medical Records
A technical analysis exposing why IPFS's lack of guaranteed persistence and unpredictable performance renders it unsuitable for the high-availability, compliance-driven demands of clinical healthcare systems.
introduction
THE DATA
The Siren Song of Decentralized Storage
IPFS fails as a scalable solution for medical records due to fundamental architectural trade-offs in availability, cost, and data integrity.
Medical records require mutable, revocable access. IPFS's immutable content identifiers (CIDs) conflict with healthcare's need for data correction and patient consent revocation, a problem that Ceramic Network's mutable streams solve but add complexity.
Scalability is a cost mirage. The economic model for storing petabytes of encrypted medical images on decentralized networks like Arweave or Filecoin is unproven at scale, with retrieval latency and cost spikes creating operational risk.
Evidence: The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requires audit trails and access controls that IPFS lacks by design, forcing developers to layer centralized gateways, which reintroduces the single point of failure.
key-insights
WHY IPFS FAILS AT SCALE
Executive Summary: The Fatal Flaws
IPFS is often proposed as a decentralized storage layer for sensitive medical data, but its core architecture is fundamentally misaligned with healthcare's non-negotiable requirements.
01
The Pinning Problem: Who Pays for Permanence?
IPFS does not guarantee data persistence; files are garbage-collected unless actively 'pinned'. For a patient's lifetime medical record, this creates an unsustainable economic model.
- Cost Model: Long-term pinning services (e.g., Pinata, Filecoin) introduce centralized, recurring fees, negating the 'free storage' promise.
- Data Loss Risk: Unpinned records can disappear in ~24 hours, violating HIPAA's data retention mandates.
- Operational Overhead: Hospitals become responsible for complex key management and payment flows for decentralized infrastructure.
~24h
Data Lifespan
$$$
Recurring Cost
02
Latency Lottery: The Performance Mirage
IPFS retrieval speed is probabilistic, not deterministic. Fetching a critical MRI scan relies on the availability and proximity of random network peers.
- Unpredictable Performance: Latency can swing from ~100ms to 10s+, failing clinical 'time-to-first-byte' requirements.
- No SLA: There is no service-level agreement for uptime or bandwidth, making it unusable for emergency care.
- Contrast with S3: Compared to AWS S3's consistent <100ms global latency, IPFS is orders of magnitude less reliable for real-time access.
100ms-10s+
Retrieval Latency
0%
Guaranteed Uptime
03
Privacy Through Obscurity: A Dangerous Fallacy
IPFS uses Content IDs (CIDs) for addressing, which are not encrypted hashes. Storing Protected Health Information (PHI) on a public, immutable DHT is a compliance nightmare.
- Data Leakage: Anyone with the CID can fetch the data. Encryption is an app-layer afterthought, not a protocol guarantee.
- Immutability Trap: If a record is improperly stored, it cannot be deleted from the network, violating the 'right to be forgotten' under GDPR.
- Audit Trail Gap: Native IPFS provides no access log, breaking HIPAA's requirement for access auditing and breach notification protocols.
Public DHT
Data Exposure
Immutable
No Deletion
04
The Verdict: A Mismatched Primitive
IPFS is a brilliant protocol for static, public content (e.g., NFT metadata, open-source code). For private, mutable, latency-sensitive, and legally-bound medical records, it is the wrong tool.
- Use Case Mismatch: It solves for censorship-resistant distribution, not compliant data custody.
- Architectural Debt: Forces applications to re-implement encryption, access control, and permanence on shaky ground.
- Real Alternative: Purpose-built, compliant decentralized storage layers like Filecoin Plus or Arweave with permaweb models are more aligned, but still lack the full regulatory stack.
0
HIPAA Certs
Mismatch
Core Design
thesis-statement
THE SCALABILITY MIRAGE
The Core Argument: Healthcare Needs Guarantees, Not Hopes
IPFS's decentralized storage model fails to provide the deterministic performance guarantees required for clinical data access.
IPFS lacks performance SLAs. The protocol's content-addressed, peer-to-peer architecture means retrieval speed depends on the availability of the specific node hosting the data, creating unpredictable latency unacceptable for emergency care.
Pinata and Filecoin are not solutions. These services add centralized pinning or incentivization layers, but they reintroduce the single points of failure and custodial risk that decentralization was meant to solve.
Clinical workflows require sub-second access. A doctor querying a patient's EHR during a code blue cannot wait for DHT lookups or hope the CID is cached nearby; this demands a guaranteed read latency that IPFS's architecture cannot provide.
Evidence: The Filecoin Plus program's 1-year storage guarantee highlights the problem—real-world use requires centralized adjudication and promises that contradict IPFS's core peer-to-peer premise.
WHY IPFS IS A SCALABILITY MIRAGE
Clinical SLA vs. IPFS Reality: An Unbridgeable Gap
Comparing the non-negotiable requirements for clinical data systems against the inherent properties of IPFS, demonstrating a fundamental architectural mismatch.
| Critical Clinical Requirement | HIPAA-Compliant Cloud (e.g., AWS, GCP) | Vanilla IPFS (Public Network) | Private IPFS + Pinata/Filecoin |
|---|---|---|---|
Guaranteed Uptime SLA | 99.95% - 99.99% | 0% (Peer-to-Peer, No Guarantee) | 99.9% (Via Centralized Pinning Service SLA) |
Data Retrieval Latency (P95) | < 200 ms | Seconds to Minutes (Depends on Peer Availability) | < 2 sec (Via Gateway, Centralized Bottleneck) |
Immutable Audit Trail / Non-Repudiation | |||
Fine-Grained, Revocable Access Control | |||
Guaranteed Data Persistence (No GC) | |||
Cost Model for 1TB, 5-Year Retention | ~$11,500 (Predictable) | Unpredictable (Relies on Altruistic Pinning) | ~$2,500 + Centralized Service Fees |
Regulatory Compliance (HIPAA/BAA) |
deep-dive
THE DATA REALITY
Deconstructing the Mirage: Persistence, Performance, and Provenance
IPFS fails as a scalable medical records layer due to its core design trade-offs in data persistence, retrieval speed, and auditability.
IPFS lacks guaranteed persistence. Content disappears when unpinned, creating a data integrity crisis. Medical records require immutable, permanent storage that IPFS's peer-to-peer garbage collection directly contradicts.
Retrieval performance is non-deterministic. A patient's MRI scan retrieval depends on geographic pinning proximity and node churn. This violates the low-latency SLA required for emergency care, unlike a Filecoin cold storage layer.
Provenance is architecturally broken. IPFS provides content-addressed hashes, not a cryptographically signed audit trail. A compliant system requires on-chain attestations from Verifiable Credentials standards, which IPFS does not natively anchor.
Evidence: The Filecoin Virtual Machine (FVM) exists because IPFS alone is insufficient. Projects like Tableland use FVM for mutable metadata precisely to bypass IPFS's static data model for dynamic records.
case-study
WHY IPFS IS A SCALABILITY MIRAGE
Architectural Alternatives: Beyond the IPFS Hype
IPFS is a decentralized file system, not a database; its design fails catastrophically for high-throughput, mutable medical records.
01
The Problem: IPFS is a Content-Addressed Graveyard
IPFS pins data to a hash. Updating a patient record creates a new, unlinked hash, leaving the old version orphaned. This breaks audit trails and creates gigabytes of immutable junk per patient.\n- No native mutability or version control\n- Exponential storage bloat for active records\n- Manual pinning required to prevent garbage collection
1000x
Storage Waste
Manual
Data Integrity
02
The Solution: Sovereign Rollups with On-Chain Pointers
Store raw data in a high-performance centralized DB (AWS S3, GCP) for sub-100ms reads. Anchor cryptographic proofs (e.g., Merkle roots) to a cheap base layer like Ethereum or Celestia for data availability and audit. This separates consensus from storage.\n- ~$0.01 per 1M records for DA\n- Full patient history via hash chains\n- Regulatory-compliant data locality
~$0.01
DA Cost/1M Recs
<100ms
Read Latency
03
The Problem: IPFS Has No Native Access Control
IPFS serves data to anyone with the CID. Medical records require HIPAA/GDPR-grade encryption and dynamic consent. Wrapping IPFS in a proxy layer adds centralization and latency, negating its decentralization benefits.\n- Data exposed by default\n- Encryption key management is external\n- No revocation without re-encrypting all data
Always Public
Default State
External
Security Layer
04
The Solution: Zero-Knowledge Coprocessors
Use a zkVM like Risc Zero or zkSync Era's Boojum to compute over private data. The hospital submits an encrypted data batch; the prover outputs a verifiable computation result (e.g., "patient is eligible") without revealing underlying records.\n- End-to-end encrypted processing\n- Auditable logic via verifiable proofs\n- Compatible with existing EHR databases
ZK-Proofs
Privacy
Verifiable
Logic
05
The Problem: IPFS Performance is Unpredictable
Retrieval speed depends on peer availability and geographic distribution. A doctor cannot wait 30+ seconds for a critical record to be fetched from a peer in another continent. The DHT lookup + peer discovery process is antithetical to clinical SLAs.\n- Multi-second latency is common\n- No guaranteed uptime or SLA\n- Hot data isn't necessarily cached
>5s
P95 Latency
0
Guaranteed SLA
06
The Solution: Decentralized CDNs with Economic Incentives
Leverage networks like Arweave (perma-cache) or Filecoin (paid retrieval) with incentivized caching layers. Storj or Sia offer S3-compatible APIs with cryptoeconomic guarantees for redundancy and speed, providing ~99.9% uptime and global edge caching.\n- Pay-for-performance model\n- S3-compatible API for easy migration\n- Cryptoeconomic SLAs for availability
99.9%
Uptime
<1s
Edge Cache
counter-argument
THE ARCHITECTURAL REALITY
Steelman: "But What About Filecoin/CRDTs/Private Clusters?"
Alternative decentralized storage solutions fail to address the core latency and coordination problems for real-time medical data.
Filecoin adds permanence, not speed. Its economic model prioritizes long-term, cold storage over low-latency retrieval. The proving and retrieval market introduces seconds-to-minutes of delay, which is catastrophic for live EHR access during patient care.
CRDTs solve sync, not consensus. Conflict-free replicated data types like Automerge or Yjs manage concurrent edits but lack the authoritative state resolution required for a legal medical record. They create forks, not a single source of truth.
Private IPFS clusters are centralized. A HIPAA-compliant cluster using tools like Kubernetes-IPFS or Textile is just a private, permissioned database with extra steps. You trade decentralization for compliance, negating IPFS's core value proposition.
Evidence: The Filecoin retrieval latency benchmark is 1-10 seconds, while a standard EHR system like Epic requires sub-200ms response times. The architectures are fundamentally mismatched.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
FAQ: Navigating the Decentralized Storage Landscape
Common questions about why IPFS is a scalability mirage for storing sensitive medical records.
IPFS is not HIPAA compliant because it lacks built-in access controls and data deletion guarantees. The protocol is designed for public, immutable data sharing, not private, revocable access required by regulations like HIPAA and GDPR. Solutions like Filecoin or Arweave with encryption layers (e.g., Lit Protocol) are necessary but add complexity.
takeaways
WHY IPFS IS A SCALABILITY MIRAGE
TL;DR: The Prescription for Healthcare Architects
IPFS is often pitched as a decentralized panacea for medical records, but its core architecture creates fatal bottlenecks for real-world healthcare systems.
01
The Pinata Problem: Who Pays for Permanence?
IPFS is a garbage-collected network; files are purged unless actively 'pinned'. This shifts the burden and cost of persistence to the application layer. For immutable medical records, this creates a centralized failure point and unpredictable, recurring costs.
- Pinning Services like Pinata or Infura become de facto centralized storage providers.
- Cost Model: Pinning 1PB of encrypted patient data can cost $250k+/month with commercial services.
- Result: You've rebuilt a costly, outsourced data center with extra steps.
$250k+
Monthly Cost
Centralized
Failure Point
02
Latency Lottery: The 10-Second MRI
IPFS retrieval is probabilistic, not guaranteed. Fetching a file depends on the availability and proximity of peers hosting it. For large diagnostic images (e.g., multi-gigabyte DICOM files), latency is unpredictable and often unacceptable for clinical workflows.
- Performance: Cold fetches can take 10+ seconds to minutes, violating clinical SLAs.
- Contrast: Centralized CDNs (Cloudflare, Akamai) deliver the same in <100ms globally.
- Architectural Reality: Healthcare requires deterministic performance, not peer-to-peer hope.
10+ sec
Retrieval Time
Probabilistic
Guarantee
03
The Privacy & Compliance Illusion
IPFS provides content-addressing, not encryption or access control. A CID is not encrypted data. Storing PHI on a public, global peer-to-peer network is a HIPAA/ GDPR compliance nightmare. On-chain solutions like zk-proofs (zk-SNARKs) or purpose-built networks (HIPAA-compliant FHIR servers) are required for real privacy.
- Data Exposure: Plaintext metadata or improperly encrypted files are globally discoverable.
- Compliance Gap: IPFS has no native mechanism for audit logs, data deletion (right to erasure), or access revocation.
- Real Solution: Encryption is a prerequisite, making IPFS just a slow, expensive blob store.
HIPAA Fail
Compliance
Global
Data Exposure
04
Arweave & Filecoin: The Actual Alternatives
If decentralized storage is the goal, newer protocols are architecturally superior. Arweave offers permanent, one-time-fee storage via endowment model. Filecoin provides a verifiable marketplace for persistent storage. Both are designed for the 'cold storage' use case that medical archives represent.
- Arweave: ~200 years of guaranteed persistence for a single upfront fee.
- Filecoin: Verifiable Proofs (Proof-of-Replication/Spacetime) ensure data integrity.
- Verdict: These are storage protocols. IPFS is merely a distributed retrieval protocol.
200 yrs
Guarantee
Verifiable
Storage
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall