Filecoin: A Decentralized Storage Network [pdf]

Post by panarky » Thu, Jul 20, 2017, 10:17 AM UTC

Zahlmeister wrote: post #127

guy_c wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Siacoins calculator at http://sia.tech/ is claiming a price of $2/TB/month vs $23/TB/month for Amazon S3. However it neglects to include Backblaze's B2 storage which is only $5/TB/month - https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-pricing.html That is maybe a not a big enough price saving to convince conservative corporations to switch. Imagine going to your accounts department to request they purchase a cryptocurren…

I don't know how using Sia works in practice, but comparing it with regular S3, which is connected to the entire AWS ecosystem (including EC2), is absurd. Amazon S3 also offers "glacier" for longterm storage with few accesses, which is $4 per TB.

Post by 3pt14159 » Thu, Jul 20, 2017, 10:45 AM UTC

richardknop wrote: post #142

I don't understand how decentralizing file storage and storing my files on people's laptops / desktops can come even close to efficiency and performance of a centralized storage service with powerful servers on fast network with 99.99 uptime. Can somebody explain to me how in theory could this decentralized storage beat something like AWS in efficiency, performance and uptime? I just think big beefy servers in dedica…

Post by jaredklewis » Thu, Jul 20, 2017, 10:48 AM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #143

richardknop wrote: post #142

I don't understand how decentralizing file storage and storing my files on people's laptops / desktops can come even close to efficiency and performance of a centralized storage service with powerful servers on fast network with 99.99 uptime. Can somebody explain to me how in theory could this decentralized storage beat something like AWS in efficiency, performance and uptime? I just think big beefy servers in dedica…

It's cheaper. Why? Because people have spare disk and spare bandwidth. It's also more likely to survive a major war if it's redundant enough. Is it better for serving hot assets, no. Is it better for storing a massive amount of raw data that you need occasional random, indexed access to? Maybe. Edit: Also, less regulatory concerns since in theory nobody knows who is paying for it. This is probably it's biggest weakne…

Post by mcnesium » Thu, Jul 20, 2017, 10:54 AM UTC

Post by zzzcpan » Thu, Jul 20, 2017, 11:21 AM UTC

richardknop wrote: post #146

jaredklewis wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's also more likely to survive a major war if it's redundant enough. If there is a major war, international Internet will be one of the first things to go. In that scenario, having your files spread out across the world is a major negative. If you want the data to survive a major war, bury an external hard drive.

Yes I don't really understand the war argument. If there were a massive war (like a world war scale not some conflict in Middle East), the first thing Russia/China would do is cut underwater internet cables. Most nation states would probably block outside internet access to avoid propaganda during time of war. I think I would have bigger concerns than whether I could recover my files stored online. For cases like thi…