Thanks for the clarification regarding replication on IPFS… but I guess you agree that a single node storage on IPFS doesn’t really have much positive advantage over just putting it on a basic http server?
about the ecological aspect of filecoin i’m not really sure, but I thought they aren’t using proof of work, rather proof of space, which doesn’t carry much ecological consequences, other than the energy to run the drives and the computer they’re attached to, but since these drives are used for legitimate applications of storing data, it’s not any worse environmentally than any other cloud storage provider
This is also what I thought until I looked into the actual hardware requirements of Filecoin, which require a hoster to purchase the very latest AFAIK Intel AMD based hardware (for the required cryptography). In addition Filecoin has a really high overall storage need Vs. usable storage, something like 100:1 if I recall correctly (edit: seems more like 20:1). This together means that Filecoin requires the replacement of huge amount of hardware and most of it is wasted due to the inefficiency.
was there some shady stuff going on? i’ve heard that filecoin has had some weird stuff going on, but never really paid close attention to it…
Something like 30% of the total possible volume of Filecoins was pre-minted and exclusively sold to accredited investors, which primarily included some really shady venture capitalist firms.
Edit: the problem there being not that they could control the network, but rather that they will get absurdly rich if Filecoin ever takes off.
but I guess you agree that a single node storage on IPFS doesn’t really have much positive advantage over just putting it on a basic http server?
same as with bittorrent? a single seeder isn’t much better than just setting up a regular http server, but if more people decide to download and seed it, then you have infinite horizontal scale in bandwidth and resilience, all in a decentralized manner, same thing with ipfs
it’s already been used for large scale backups by sci hub and libgen
This is also what I thought until I looked into the actual hardware requirements of Filecoin, which require a hoster to purchase the very latest AFAIK Intel based hardware (for the required cryptography).
i don’t really see a problem in that, if they are going to compete with enterprise grade storage offers then you need good hardware to run it
Filecoin has a really high overall storage need Vs. usable storage, something like 100:1 if I recall correctly.
that seems awfully high to have any semblance of practicality, could you provide a source on that?
Something like 30% of the total possible volume of Filecoins was pre-minted and exclusively sold to accredited investors, which primarily included some really shady venture capitalist firms.
yeah, pre-mining sucks, but that’s just how ICOs work, no?
For example, a 32GiB expands to ~480GiB during the sealing process.
Source.
(And yes I stand corrected and it is only about 10:1 on a single miner at least, but I think there is also some further significant network replication involved). Edit: also note the significant other hardware requirements. Edit2: now I remember where the higher ratio came from… typically commercial data-storage is done on Raid6 or similar, so storing something 10:1 on an raid system gives you the a even worse ratio, but maybe not 100:1.
Yeah, ICOs suck, but that is just how Capitalism works, no? /s
Thanks for the clarification regarding replication on IPFS… but I guess you agree that a single node storage on IPFS doesn’t really have much positive advantage over just putting it on a basic http server?
This is also what I thought until I looked into the actual hardware requirements of Filecoin, which require a hoster to purchase the very latest AFAIK
IntelAMD based hardware (for the required cryptography). In addition Filecoin has a really high overall storage need Vs. usable storage, something like 100:1 if I recall correctly (edit: seems more like 20:1). This together means that Filecoin requires the replacement of huge amount of hardware and most of it is wasted due to the inefficiency.Something like 30% of the total possible volume of Filecoins was pre-minted and exclusively sold to accredited investors, which primarily included some really shady venture capitalist firms. Edit: the problem there being not that they could control the network, but rather that they will get absurdly rich if Filecoin ever takes off.
same as with bittorrent? a single seeder isn’t much better than just setting up a regular http server, but if more people decide to download and seed it, then you have infinite horizontal scale in bandwidth and resilience, all in a decentralized manner, same thing with ipfs
it’s already been used for large scale backups by sci hub and libgen
i don’t really see a problem in that, if they are going to compete with enterprise grade storage offers then you need good hardware to run it
that seems awfully high to have any semblance of practicality, could you provide a source on that?
yeah, pre-mining sucks, but that’s just how ICOs work, no?
Source. (And yes I stand corrected and it is only about 10:1 on a single miner at least, but I think there is also some further significant network replication involved). Edit: also note the significant other hardware requirements. Edit2: now I remember where the higher ratio came from… typically commercial data-storage is done on Raid6 or similar, so storing something 10:1 on an raid system gives you the a even worse ratio, but maybe not 100:1.
Yeah, ICOs suck, but that is just how Capitalism works, no? /s