3 ms·
Incentives are not aligned here. As a user, I'm not paying for file to be stored - I'm paying so it can be retrieved anytime. As a space owner, I want to maximi
by Drdrdrq 8y ago
Incentives are not aligned here. As a user, I'm not paying for file to be stored - I'm paying so it can be retrieved anytime. As a space owner, I want to maximize profits per space, with cheapest (not reliable) disks possible.
This system would work much better if payment was tied to retrieval, not storage.
- hamandcheese 8y agoThis system has its own set of issues though: - if I am storing data, how do I know I’ll get paid? What if the data is never retrieved? - if I want data stored for later retrieval, how do I know it will continue to be stored? - if my data is stored with only one remaining party, how do I make sure they don’t learn this and hold my data hostage? - how are retrievals public ally verified?
- Drdrdrq 8y agoTrue, the idea would need to be developed further. That said, I think periodic retreival of data (and thus periodic payment to storage providers) would solve most of these issues.
- niyikiza 8y agoMy team -- and I'm sure a number of other teams -- are looking into different approaches of implementing a "Proof of Retrievability". What we need is a cost-effective way for a data owner to verify that their data would be available intact should they need it. And that's where we want to tie our incentive policy for storage nodes owners. And yes, a storage owner does not need to know whose data that is, or which other nodes are storing replicas for the same data.
- woah 8y agoYou are paying for the option of retrieval. That is what you want as a user. That’s what these systems are designed for. The words “paying for storage” are just easier to say.