4 ms·
> What a refurbished hard disk does not give you: [...] The whole point is that a decentralized storage network can add such features on top of the 1TB refurbi
by gnode 7y ago
> What a refurbished hard disk does not give you: [...]
The whole point is that a decentralized storage network can add such features on top of the 1TB refurbished hard drive.
The refurbished drive may not be reliable, but if you replicate your data amongst many separate drives with independent failure (geographically distributed; different providing entities) then you can create a system with greater reliability. By using erasure coding schemes (similar to RAID5/6), it's possible to reduce the storage overhead which supports reliability to a fraction of the principle amount. Thus, providing 1 TB of storage to the network could earn slightly less than 1 TB of reliable storage in return.
Comparatively, a single cloud provider has the disadvantage that, because they are a single legal entity, they can decide for whatever reason to not continue your service.
- jchw 7y agoWhat I am not saying is that Sia is not viable or that cloud storage providers have no downsides, which they clearly do. I did not mean to imply that there is anything wrong with this service, just to express my annoyance with the comparison. I am not happy that my comment got so much attention, because I had no intention to overshadow the announcement with my single gripe. The line that is annoying me and probably others is this: > Buyers are essentially paying Amazon each month the entire cost of the hard drives used to store their data ...They're not. Because redundancy. Because electricity, CPUs, network, software development, etc.
- nabla9 7y agoThe comparison is meaningful setup for discussing decentralized cloud storage. The comparison establishes the fact hat Amazon's price is not coming from the physical storage HW itself, its the everything around it. Then you can move to discussing how to get other parts cheaper.