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

Filecoin, StorJ and the problem with decentralized storage (2019)

randomoracle.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 123 posts

Re: Filecoin, StorJ and the problem with decentralized storage (2019)

#11

Post by mediocregopher »

GoldenMonkey wrote: post #7
nemo1618 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably the argument is that a storage host might dutifully provide proofs of storage, but refuse to actually transfer your data to you later. This is true, but it's also true of centralized storage providers. The difference is that traditional providers are typically bound by SLAs -- something that a blockchain can't really offer. Instead, decentralized storage gives you the ability to store your data with dozens…

Sure it can provide an SLA. The code is the SLA. And is available for all to examine. Via opensource. And governance allows the community to change terms/accept code... moving forward.

That's pretty hand-wavy. Anyone can read the published code, but you can't read the code being run by each individual entity in the network. Any individual might change their server to not make the stored data available to those paying for the storage.

It's not _likely_, as that would negate the usefulness of the whole system if it became an issue, and therefore negate the cash flow into the system.

Ultimately what's keeping the storage providers honest, whether they're centralized or decentralized, is that their future profit stream is based on their current behavior, and they presumably care about future profits. Code and SLAs ain't nothing but words.

Re: Filecoin, StorJ and the problem with decentralized storage (2019)

#12

Post by cle »

nemo1618 wrote: post #6
yosito wrote: post #2

As someone who just set up Storj to backup my Nextcloud installation, I am very interested in this topic. Storj was a cheap alternative to AWS S3, and, at least out of the box, zero-knowledge encryption was easier, though I know there are ways to achieve zero knowledge encryption with any S3 provider. I hadn't considered Glacier, but I may look into it. Edit: One thing I liked about Storj was that geographic redundan…

Presumably the argument is that a storage host might dutifully provide proofs of storage, but refuse to actually transfer your data to you later. This is true, but it's also true of centralized storage providers. The difference is that traditional providers are typically bound by SLAs -- something that a blockchain can't really offer. Instead, decentralized storage gives you the ability to store your data with dozens…

S3 has no durability SLA, only an availability SLA. S3 also explicitly says it is not designed for 100% durability, but for a certian number of nines (99.999999999%).

Re: Filecoin, StorJ and the problem with decentralized storage (2019)

#13

Post by karpierz »

cle wrote: post #12
nemo1618 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably the argument is that a storage host might dutifully provide proofs of storage, but refuse to actually transfer your data to you later. This is true, but it's also true of centralized storage providers. The difference is that traditional providers are typically bound by SLAs -- something that a blockchain can't really offer. Instead, decentralized storage gives you the ability to store your data with dozens…

S3 has no durability SLA, only an availability SLA. S3 also explicitly says it is not designed for 100% durability, but for a certian number of nines (99.999999999%).

Blockchain has neither a durability or availability SLA.

Re: Filecoin, StorJ and the problem with decentralized storage (2019)

#15

Post by opnitro »

prepend wrote: post #9
GoldenMonkey wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it can provide an SLA. The code is the SLA. And is available for all to examine. Via opensource. And governance allows the community to change terms/accept code... moving forward.

I can run the code behind a network that prevents outbound file transfers for large data. So the code shows file, all my proof of storage is correct and users are hosed. There’s no “proof of bandwidth” (yet)

And again, even if we restrict ourselves to honest parties, hardware failures happen. Auditing the code tells you nothing about their infrastructure.

Re: Filecoin, StorJ and the problem with decentralized storage (2019)

#16

Post by ChainOfFools »

nemo1618 wrote: post #6
yosito wrote: post #2

As someone who just set up Storj to backup my Nextcloud installation, I am very interested in this topic. Storj was a cheap alternative to AWS S3, and, at least out of the box, zero-knowledge encryption was easier, though I know there are ways to achieve zero knowledge encryption with any S3 provider. I hadn't considered Glacier, but I may look into it. Edit: One thing I liked about Storj was that geographic redundan…

Presumably the argument is that a storage host might dutifully provide proofs of storage, but refuse to actually transfer your data to you later. This is true, but it's also true of centralized storage providers. The difference is that traditional providers are typically bound by SLAs -- something that a blockchain can't really offer. Instead, decentralized storage gives you the ability to store your data with dozens…

> dozens of independent entities

or one entity operating dozens of nodes? droplets are cheap, pwned windows boxes even cheaper. they don't even have to be cheap by regular Joe standards, they could be cheap by nation state, or ransomware gang standards. the point is there's no way to prove they are decentralized. this is an intrinsic, structural property of the cryptocurrency model, thus it is not a mere technical defect that will get solved "in the future"

proving decentralization would require zero privacy, because you'd have to prove independent nodes are indeed independent and not part of a cartel, which means you'd have to somehow prove who operates each one.

nothing but faith-based decentralization here, as with all cryptocurrencies.

Re: Filecoin, StorJ and the problem with decentralized storage (2019)

#17

Post by tymekpavel »

Geee wrote: post #5

One important property of decentralized storage is that it prevents data monopolies. For example, if you host your web app on Sia Skynet, then users own their data instead of being locked in by the app developer. It also enables a model where different apps can easily access the same data. The data is in the "cloud", but still owned by the user.

Do you know why Sia is overlooked so often? I see a lot of shills on forums and the founder seems to tweet bitterly about Filecoin, but folks seem optimistic about the tech. So what am I missing that makes Sia not get adoption vs. Filecoin?

Re: Filecoin, StorJ and the problem with decentralized storage (2019)

#18

Post by de6u99er »

Just for everybody to be in the same page.

Blockchain is not used for distributed storage itself. Existing concepts like IPFS are used for this. Blockchain is used to confirm that someone is storing certain data and to verify it's integrity through an additional protocol.

From ipfs.io about Blockchain

>With IPFS, you can address large amounts of data and put immutable, permanent links in transactions — timestamping and securing content without having to put the data itself on-chain.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Re: Filecoin, StorJ and the problem with decentralized storage (2019)

#19

Post by yosito »

nemo1618 wrote: post #6
yosito wrote: post #2

As someone who just set up Storj to backup my Nextcloud installation, I am very interested in this topic. Storj was a cheap alternative to AWS S3, and, at least out of the box, zero-knowledge encryption was easier, though I know there are ways to achieve zero knowledge encryption with any S3 provider. I hadn't considered Glacier, but I may look into it. Edit: One thing I liked about Storj was that geographic redundan…

Presumably the argument is that a storage host might dutifully provide proofs of storage, but refuse to actually transfer your data to you later. This is true, but it's also true of centralized storage providers. The difference is that traditional providers are typically bound by SLAs -- something that a blockchain can't really offer. Instead, decentralized storage gives you the ability to store your data with dozens…

In the case of Storj, I believe that the redundancy between storage nodes is sufficient that something like only 20 out of 80 nodes need to respond in order to restore your data.

Re: Filecoin, StorJ and the problem with decentralized storage (2019)

#20

Post by chrisco255 »

karpierz wrote: post #13
cle wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

S3 has no durability SLA, only an availability SLA. S3 also explicitly says it is not designed for 100% durability, but for a certian number of nines (99.999999999%).

Blockchain has neither a durability or availability SLA.

An SLA just gives you the right to fee reductions or potential compensation for downtime. And not all SLAs are created equal. Meanwhile, for example, many blockchains such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, have 100% uptime. Not 99.99%...100%.
Post reply on HN