Filecoin, StorJ and the problem with decentralized storage (2019) • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 9:01 PM UTC

yosito wrote: post #19

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…

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.

[deleted]

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

#62

Post by ChainOfFools » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 9:04 PM UTC

omginternets wrote: post #58

ChainOfFools wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe such infrastructure is better thought of as distributed, rather than decentralized. decentralization is a tendency to resist centralizing forces, it is not an intentional policy of a group. as soon as an identifiable organ in the organization is charged with twiddling the policy knobs that govern control over group resource access, this organ is now distributing this access and it can no longer be considere…

> I believe such infrastructure is better thought of as distributed, rather than decentralized. Hmm, I'm not sure I follow. On a technical level, a pure p2p system continues to function without central coordination even if each individual node is "owned" by the same entity. These seem to be two very different levels of analysis. If I understand your claim correctly, you are pointing out that this hypothetical entity…

I think its a question of how you reason about technology. I see technology as an extension of the agency of those who created and operate it, not as even in theory) an autonomous entity distinct from its users. in this view, who is operating the network is where the decentralization-or-not analysis belongs.

p2p requires peers, so called for good reason, because their interests and cost/benefits must align sufficiently for them to engage in using the same protocol. thus, "who these people are" dominates the question of control over the network.

tl;dr behavior of users networked by a putatively decentralized protocol will ultimately conform to the social organization of those users, not to the rules of the protocol. these will be routed around or backgrounded as needed to achieve the objectives of the dominant members of the group hierarchy.

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

#63

Post by 300bps » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

brutaltruth wrote: post #46

Not very interesting. There are ways to solve all of these concerns--no fees are paid during the first X months, nodes periodically tested for bandwidth, etc. etc. Just because the author didn't bother to think it through doesn't mean it's not straightforward. The whole idea of a blockchain is reputation CAN be built up over time, because every transaction is recorded and there might even be incentives to associate n…

What do you base AWS storage having "an enormous markup" on? AWS has a type of storage to meet any access need / budget. S3 Glacier Deep Dive for example is perfect for storing archival items and costs $0.00099 per GB-month. So you can store a TB for about $1 per month.

There are even options like S3 Intelligent Tiering that enable you to store objects on S3 Standard and it will intelligently move them to lower-cost options based on the usage patterns of the data.

There are six different pricing options of S3 storage. There are EBS volumes, EFS volumes, FSx for Lustre and many other options for storage.

I used to mine BTC, currently mine Ethereum and looked into mining Filecoin and was left wondering if the people buying into it have any idea what cloud storage options are actually out there. There is so much competition and the prices are sooooo low that I don't see any viable use case for Filecoin outside of the one you mentioned about being concerned about being shut down by a single vendor.

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

#64

Post by pessimizer » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 9:13 PM UTC

fwip wrote: post #44

IPFS is mostly fine technology for storing data in a content-addressable way. FileCoin is, at best, an inefficient way to incentivize people to store your data in an imaginary trustless world. (At worst, it's an obvious scam.) You can imagine any hosting provider offering regular IPFS hosting. Sign up on our website, send us a list of data to store, pay us money, and we'll guarantee you can get it back or you can sue…

The advantage would be to have a program on my computer that would negotiate prices with providers and manage latency and redundancy. This could of course also be solved if storage providers, as a group, standardized on a single protocol (creating a commodity industry.)

I'm not sure there's a huge difference between that and this, other than anonymity for providers (which is the major critique of this blogpost.)

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

#65

Post by Geee » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 9:18 PM UTC

tymekpavel wrote: post #17

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?

Filecoin got a lot of funding from prominent investors before they even started. I don't think there's much actual adoption in there.

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

#66

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 9:26 PM UTC

brutaltruth wrote: post #46

Not very interesting. There are ways to solve all of these concerns--no fees are paid during the first X months, nodes periodically tested for bandwidth, etc. etc. Just because the author didn't bother to think it through doesn't mean it's not straightforward. The whole idea of a blockchain is reputation CAN be built up over time, because every transaction is recorded and there might even be incentives to associate n…

[deleted]

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

#67

Post by gruez » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

brutaltruth wrote: post #46

Not very interesting. There are ways to solve all of these concerns--no fees are paid during the first X months, nodes periodically tested for bandwidth, etc. etc. Just because the author didn't bother to think it through doesn't mean it's not straightforward. The whole idea of a blockchain is reputation CAN be built up over time, because every transaction is recorded and there might even be incentives to associate n…

>Amazon already erases books from Kindles, Google scans your Docs for blasphemy against Fauci, and both have been known to throw businesses off their services. In a few years it will seem crazy not to have an extra copy of your data on here.

Isn't this a non-issue because you can encrypt your data prior to uploading?

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

#68

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

300bps wrote: post #63

brutaltruth wrote: post #46

Not very interesting. There are ways to solve all of these concerns--no fees are paid during the first X months, nodes periodically tested for bandwidth, etc. etc. Just because the author didn't bother to think it through doesn't mean it's not straightforward. The whole idea of a blockchain is reputation CAN be built up over time, because every transaction is recorded and there might even be incentives to associate n…

What do you base AWS storage having "an enormous markup" on? AWS has a type of storage to meet any access need / budget. S3 Glacier Deep Dive for example is perfect for storing archival items and costs $0.00099 per GB-month. So you can store a TB for about $1 per month. There are even options like S3 Intelligent Tiering that enable you to store objects on S3 Standard and it will intelligently move them to lower-cost…

[deleted]

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

#69

Post by admax88q » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 9:38 PM UTC

300bps wrote: post #63

brutaltruth wrote: post #46

Not very interesting. There are ways to solve all of these concerns--no fees are paid during the first X months, nodes periodically tested for bandwidth, etc. etc. Just because the author didn't bother to think it through doesn't mean it's not straightforward. The whole idea of a blockchain is reputation CAN be built up over time, because every transaction is recorded and there might even be incentives to associate n…

What do you base AWS storage having "an enormous markup" on? AWS has a type of storage to meet any access need / budget. S3 Glacier Deep Dive for example is perfect for storing archival items and costs $0.00099 per GB-month. So you can store a TB for about $1 per month. There are even options like S3 Intelligent Tiering that enable you to store objects on S3 Standard and it will intelligently move them to lower-cost…

> What do you base AWS storage having "an enormous markup" on?

Probably on the basis that backblaze costs an order of magnitude less for the same product.

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

#70

Post by gruez » Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 9:41 PM UTC

admax88q wrote: post #69

300bps wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you base AWS storage having "an enormous markup" on? AWS has a type of storage to meet any access need / budget. S3 Glacier Deep Dive for example is perfect for storing archival items and costs $0.00099 per GB-month. So you can store a TB for about $1 per month. There are even options like S3 Intelligent Tiering that enable you to store objects on S3 Standard and it will intelligently move them to lower-cost…

> What do you base AWS storage having "an enormous markup" on? Probably on the basis that backblaze costs an order of magnitude less for the same product.

AFAIK s3 is multi datacenter whereas B2 is only one.