4 ms·
Let's take Dropbox for example. They save a lot of costs by deduplicating copies of files, and it makes file renames/moves/shares really easy for them. Therefo
by orijing 15y ago
Let's take Dropbox for example.
They save a lot of costs by deduplicating copies of files, and it makes file renames/moves/shares really easy for them. Therefore, they wouldn't have the incentive to destroy that advantage: That's one of the major scale advantages they get for covering so many users.
With that said, they could offer that "by default" to premium users who already pay for the service to simplify their lives and keep their more profitable customers happy.
What are everyone's views on that, from Dropbox's perspective?
- bdhe 15y agoThey save a lot of costs by deduplicating copies of files, and it makes file renames/moves/shares really easy for them. Therefore, they wouldn't have the incentive to destroy that advantage: That's one of the major scale advantages they get for covering so many users. I posted this elsewhere in the thread: That's not true. As is, in a lot of crypto problems, there are powerful workarounds that require a lot of work. See here for one idea: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2461713 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2461713 Please also see the further discussions. Crypto gives us powerful tools to mitigate several attacks with minimal compromise on functionality. Unfortunately there are legal ways that are more powerful.
- SamReidHughes 15y agoThat idea doesn't work. It doesn't stop a third-party from seeing who has copies of a file.