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

“Within 24h of launch a majority of miners are already on strike” Consequences?

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: “Within 24h of launch a majority of miners are already on strike” Consequences?

#31

Post by mariopt »

throwaway4good wrote: post #28
mariopt wrote: post #17

Glad I dodged this bullet. Last year I dedicated my Intel Nuc i3, 8 gb Ram with a 500gb hard drive but the amount of files/contracts was so low that eventually I shut it down. I'm very surprised about the 128 gigs of ram requirement, guess this network isn't that decentralized as promised. Anyway, from the beginning it easy to see that competing against something like AWS S3 would be super super hard if not impossibl…

What did you expect in terms of revenue offering 500 GB to the network?

I was just testing the waters, the idea seems futurist and reasonable. The price of token wasn't set back then and the company decided to inject some capital with a fixed return over a period of 2 year I believe, don't remember the amount but I know it was very generous.

Re: “Within 24h of launch a majority of miners are already on strike” Consequences?

#32

Post by iamnotnicola »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #30
jdmichal wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I looked at the requirements earlier and was blown away. Their official recommendation is three servers with some very expensive hardware. Three Epyc processors, one machine with 128GB of RAM (and a lot more swap space), and one with 2x GPUs. And all that to "seal" like one TB an hour . But it's OK, because this is totally not a proof of work system. https://filecoin.io/vintage/mining-hardware-config-testnet-v...

How often (on average?) do you need to seal each TB you have? For example if it's four months and you can do a terabyte per hour then that's about 3 petabytes and the cost of the sealing servers is a small fraction of the cost of the storage server. Is it much less? But also the tweet says something about one terabyte per day?

You only seal (the expensive operation) when you add power.

Once you stop sealing you don't need to seal again for ~1 year (depending on your sector lifetime).

Keeping storage power is a cheap computation in comparison.

Re: “Within 24h of launch a majority of miners are already on strike” Consequences?

#33

Post by noxer »

vecio wrote: post #4
etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #2

This is hard for me to follow, but this is what I was able to gather: Filecoin developers have set expensive hardware requirements to be a Filecoin miner, as well as expensive staking requirements. The mining is also highly centralized with insiders. Third party miners are disappointed because they can't mine despite costly investments. Is this summary correct? My take on possible consequences: no one likes excessive…

Centralization of Filecoin is an issue, but not the point of these tweets. The tweets focus on rekt Filecoin miners, they have spent more than $200M on hardware, but seems impossible to get back that with FIL mining, and since most miners are from China, no west media report this thing yet.

Regardless of the actual reason why they cant use the 200M hardware, isnt int kinda funny that they even assumed that they could make money from the full capacity at day 1. Who the heck would be the customer of cloud storage hardware worth 200M at day 1. Clearly demand grows over time, that cant be skipped. Reward "miners" for whatever they provide even if no one uses it - sound unsustainable.

Re: “Within 24h of launch a majority of miners are already on strike” Consequences?

#34

Post by esotericimpl »

These guys are just like the clowns on Wall Street with their magical mortgage money machine in the 2000s.

Why can’t i turn electricity into money by doing zero work. Incredible to me that this hasn’t imploded yet. Soon, but not yet.

Re: “Within 24h of launch a majority of miners are already on strike” Consequences?

#36

Post by ashtonkem »

vecio wrote: post #4
etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #2

This is hard for me to follow, but this is what I was able to gather: Filecoin developers have set expensive hardware requirements to be a Filecoin miner, as well as expensive staking requirements. The mining is also highly centralized with insiders. Third party miners are disappointed because they can't mine despite costly investments. Is this summary correct? My take on possible consequences: no one likes excessive…

Centralization of Filecoin is an issue, but not the point of these tweets. The tweets focus on rekt Filecoin miners, they have spent more than $200M on hardware, but seems impossible to get back that with FIL mining, and since most miners are from China, no west media report this thing yet.

It’s highly unlikely that they would get their money back if they lived in the west either. Most victims of crypto currency fraud are not made whole.

Genuinely not sure why people keep falling for this though.

Re: “Within 24h of launch a majority of miners are already on strike” Consequences?

#37

Post by jsmith45 »

iamnotnicola wrote: post #32
Dylan16807 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How often (on average?) do you need to seal each TB you have? For example if it's four months and you can do a terabyte per hour then that's about 3 petabytes and the cost of the sealing servers is a small fraction of the cost of the storage server. Is it much less? But also the tweet says something about one terabyte per day?

You only seal (the expensive operation) when you add power. Once you stop sealing you don't need to seal again for ~1 year (depending on your sector lifetime). Keeping storage power is a cheap computation in comparison.

Assuming one is starting off by sealing pledged sectors, they would also need to re-seal any such sector upon upgrading to store actual content pursuant to some deal they have accepted.

I'm assuming there is probably not enough real storage demand yet, so large miners will end up pledging sectors a fair chunk of the time, in order to increase their power, at least while they have spare disk space remaining.

Re: “Within 24h of launch a majority of miners are already on strike” Consequences?

#38

Post by wmf »

noxer wrote: post #33
vecio wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Centralization of Filecoin is an issue, but not the point of these tweets. The tweets focus on rekt Filecoin miners, they have spent more than $200M on hardware, but seems impossible to get back that with FIL mining, and since most miners are from China, no west media report this thing yet.

Regardless of the actual reason why they cant use the 200M hardware, isnt int kinda funny that they even assumed that they could make money from the full capacity at day 1. Who the heck would be the customer of cloud storage hardware worth 200M at day 1. Clearly demand grows over time, that cant be skipped. Reward "miners" for whatever they provide even if no one uses it - sound unsustainable.

Rewarding miners for reserved but unused capacity is an explicit feature of Filecoin that I guess is intended to build up capacity in advance of customer need. These miners just did what Protocol Labs told them to do.

Re: “Within 24h of launch a majority of miners are already on strike” Consequences?

#39

Post by noxer »

wmf wrote: post #38
noxer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of the actual reason why they cant use the 200M hardware, isnt int kinda funny that they even assumed that they could make money from the full capacity at day 1. Who the heck would be the customer of cloud storage hardware worth 200M at day 1. Clearly demand grows over time, that cant be skipped. Reward "miners" for whatever they provide even if no one uses it - sound unsustainable.

Rewarding miners for reserved but unused capacity is an explicit feature of Filecoin that I guess is intended to build up capacity in advance of customer need. These miners just did what Protocol Labs told them to do.

Reserves sure, but at the start you dont know how much is needed so to just assume reward for whatever show up is comically naive. It could take months for real demand actually using a significant portion of the storage. Pay everyone else anyway is literally trowing money away.

Just imagine if one of the large cloud storage player would have set this up and simply offered all their reserves which they could do as there is no way anyone would use it. If they would get paid for that It would be very lucrative.

Post reply on HN