Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Filecoin: A Decentralized Storage Network [pdf]

filecoin.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 170 posts

Re: Filecoin: A Decentralized Storage Network [pdf]

#151

Post by Ajedi32 »

FRex wrote: post #96
Ajedi32 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bandwidth is effectively free for many users (no data cap), and the amount of processing power required for something simple like file storage is pretty trivial. You're right that it's non-zero, but I'd imagine it's probably on the order of pennies a month.

Is it really? Even just extra 10W over a month is just under 7 kWh and might approach a dollar[1]. Spinning 3.5" HDDs from time to time is especially costly and they often spin down when unused for a long time. Load spike might also make CPU freq scale up and consume more power. Same with bandwidth, you'll incur ISP wrath or saturate it (or keep wasting most of that free space), even 80 Mbps[1] is 'just' 36 GB / hour…

I guess the exact costs would depend on usage patterns, frequency of file read/writes, etc.

It's worth noting though that Sia (another decentralized storage network) is estimating their current storage costs at $2/TB-Month. That's half the price of Amazon Glacier. Whether that's the result of users farming from their home PCs or giant Chinese storage farms though I have no clue.

Re: Filecoin: A Decentralized Storage Network [pdf]

#152

Post by ardivekar »

tyrust wrote: post #42
colejohnson66 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But with Apple and Google, I know my data won’t go missing because the p2p network decided to stop seeding my file. Torrents die all the time due to lack of seeding.

Torrent hosts do not have a monetary incentive to host files. Filecoin (and other decentralized storage systems) provide monetary rewards and penalties for storing or failing to store files. This is introduced in Section 4.1.1 of this paper.

I think it's a problem of reputation, actually. Google and Apple keep stuff online because they promised they would, and there would be backlash if they turned it off all of a sudden. There's nothing stopping a random, anonymous "filer" (like miner) from stopping the upload stream.

To go even further, if you orchestrate several miners carefully (maybe computationally) they can together perhaps stop people from accessing certain files.

Re: Filecoin: A Decentralized Storage Network [pdf]

#153

Post by ardivekar »

Kubuxu wrote: post #137
agl wrote: post #117

Unfortunately, one of the important citations ([5], "Proof of Replication") does not appear to be available. (Or, at least, Google cannot find it.)

Yes, citations 5, 14, 15 will be published latter. There is a possibility that some of them will be published next week.

At least upload a preprint to arXiv or something. What's the point of citing a paper that doesn't exist yet?

Re: Filecoin: A Decentralized Storage Network [pdf]

#154

Post by AlexCoventry »

Taek wrote: post #126
AlexCoventry wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FileCoin is using proof of storage of client data for blockchain ledger security. That's a very tricky thing to get right (I didn't think it was possible.) Search the white paper for "Sybil attack, outsourcing attacks, generation attacks", and see section 7.4 of the SiaCoin whitepaper for contrast: https://www.sia.tech/whitepaper.pdf

Considering that they have three important citations of the paper unpublished, I think it's okay to continue to be skeptical that they have achieved their claims. This paper is not complete, and on it's own does not demonstrate that they have solved the problem. It is always trivial to simulate storing client data that you don't have. So you'd have to invent a system where simulating client data is equally expensive…

I'm not skeptical, yet, just surprised -- haven't had a chance to dig in.

My main concern at this stage is the replication setup time, which needs to be computationally expensive for the strategy to prevent generation attacks. That can possibly be amortized over long-term storage, but it sounds like it might be a long amortization period.

Re: Filecoin: A Decentralized Storage Network [pdf]

#155

Post by jhall1468 »

hudon wrote: post #123
jhall1468 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing I love more than a chicken or egg argument. Nobody is doing B because there isn't a company that has a scalable B option yet. But hey, your argument is totally valid, which is why everyone is still programming in Cobalt!

Sarcasm aside, option A works and option B does not, as you admit. What's your counter-argument? If it is that option B will one day be better than option A, you will need to provide evidence because that's a claim that is not addressed in the posted filecoin.pdf.

> If it is that option B will one day be better than option A, you will need to provide evidence because that's a claim that is not addressed in the posted filecoin.pdf.

Argument to the Future. You can't provide evidence of a future event and asking for it is a joke. Maybe Sia/File/Storj are the future maybe it's something else, but asking for "evidence" of a future event is a joke.

Re: Filecoin: A Decentralized Storage Network [pdf]

#156

Post by diggan »

hudon wrote: post #104
xtracto wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ooohh we thought that as well, until the latest S3 outage.

Ask the CTO of any Fortune 100 company what they're doing to mitigate such an outage. What do you think they will answer? Option A: cross-region replication, regular backups, and secondary service provider failover plan Option B: decentralize everything on people's laptops

Option C: cross-region replication, regular backups and multiple service provider failover plan in a secure, decentralized storage network.

Don't have to be choosing either "Businesses To Big To Fail(tm)" or "Average Joe" when you can have "Many businesses"

Re: Filecoin: A Decentralized Storage Network [pdf]

#157

Post by Taek »

AlexCoventry wrote: post #154
Taek wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that they have three important citations of the paper unpublished, I think it's okay to continue to be skeptical that they have achieved their claims. This paper is not complete, and on it's own does not demonstrate that they have solved the problem. It is always trivial to simulate storing client data that you don't have. So you'd have to invent a system where simulating client data is equally expensive…

I'm not skeptical, yet, just surprised -- haven't had a chance to dig in. My main concern at this stage is the replication setup time, which needs to be computationally expensive for the strategy to prevent generation attacks. That can possibly be amortized over long-term storage, but it sounds like it might be a long amortization period.

Replication setup also likely could be optimized by ASICs, so attackers willing to spend money on specialized hardware may have a 1000x advantage/asymmetry when it comes to generation attacks

Re: Filecoin: A Decentralized Storage Network [pdf]

#158

Post by solatic »

Anybody with a better understanding of filecoin - can you explain how the protocol can tell the difference between a legitimate hardware failure and a storage miner who stores the uploaded file, signs proof of replication to the blockchain, then immediately deletes the file so that he can "store" more files, collecting more payment, and then refuse delivery upon download request, claiming hardware failure?

Does the blockchain have some way to prevent miners from double-spending their storage space? Is payment only collected upon retrieval, allowing Filecoin to be abused for storing backups that are rarely retrieved?

Re: Filecoin: A Decentralized Storage Network [pdf]

#159

Post by [deleted] »

jhall1468 wrote: post #155
hudon wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sarcasm aside, option A works and option B does not, as you admit. What's your counter-argument? If it is that option B will one day be better than option A, you will need to provide evidence because that's a claim that is not addressed in the posted filecoin.pdf.

> If it is that option B will one day be better than option A, you will need to provide evidence because that's a claim that is not addressed in the posted filecoin.pdf. Argument to the Future. You can't provide evidence of a future event and asking for it is a joke. Maybe Sia/File/Storj are the future maybe it's something else, but asking for "evidence" of a future event is a joke.

[deleted]

Re: Filecoin: A Decentralized Storage Network [pdf]

#160

Post by stebalien »

solatic wrote: post #158

Anybody with a better understanding of filecoin - can you explain how the protocol can tell the difference between a legitimate hardware failure and a storage miner who stores the uploaded file, signs proof of replication to the blockchain, then immediately deletes the file so that he can "store" more files, collecting more payment, and then refuse delivery upon download request, claiming hardware failure? Does the b…

> can you explain how the protocol can tell the difference between a legitimate hardware

From the perspective of the network, there is no difference. When you agree to dedicate some storage to the network, you post a collateral in FIlecoin. If you lose something you've agreed to store (fail to prove that you're storing it when asked to do so by the network), you pay a penalty out of your collateral.

> Is payment only collected upon retrieval

No. Storage miners continuously prove (probabilistically) to the network that they're storing the files they've agreed to store.

Post reply on HN