3 ms·

I don't think you need to incentivise people to host each other's data. People will host their own data, and they may host others' data for free like in BitTorr

I don't think you need to incentivise people to host each other's data. People will host their own data, and they may host others' data for free like in BitTorrent. I am skeptical of the need for filecoin-like systems in the first place. If all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

k__ 4y ago
The "hammer" were centralized systems, and now we have an alternative with Filecoin, Arweave, and the likes.
- cowtools 4y ago
  The hammer here is both. Cryptocurrrency is solving an incentive problem here that doesn't really exist. If anything, File hosters should not be the ones that pay for the hosting, it should be whoever is retriving the file, and those funds should go towards relay nodes and hosting nodes. filecoin's incentive structure essentially replicates that of the existing internet, where file hosters will have to find some other form of income like advertisements or tracking to cover their costs. Here is a comment I made yesterday on the matter: >Instead of "liking" or "upvoting" a post on a centralized forum, why not "rehost" or "forward" a post on a decentralized forum: essentially seeding it like in BitTorrent or "pinning" it in IPFS. "Followers" of a user donate their storage and bandwidth to them, combating bureaucratic attacks like delisting and DDoS against popular users.
  - k__ 4y ago
    I think, this is the main problem. Nobody really wants to host other peoples stuff, especially not on their desktop or smartphone. That's where Filecoin comes in. But yes, I think the Filecoin model is to heavy weight right now.
    - cowtools 4y ago
      people have extra storage and bandwidth that they don't need. Anything that the public decides not to rehost is not worth being published.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        People do not have extra upload bandwidth to stream video. Plus the whole CGNAT issue of getting to a home device.
        cowtools 4y ago
        Yes they do. See: bittorrent and webtorrent-based streaming services. My friend uses private trackers and his download speeds are unbelievable. But even on public trackers the download speeds are quite good. It does not take that many seeders to serve even a giant video file like an HD film, because even if upload speeds are a fraction of download speeds, the total upload bandwidth will be multiplied by the number of seeders. In fact, even an adequately-seeded torrent is orders of magnitudes faster to download than a youtube video or HTTP file for example. People like to keep backups of their favorite creator's works. On youtube, when a popular youtube video is taken down, it will usually be reuploaded by fans. From this, we can probably surmise that maybe 1/100000 viewers will archive a given video. That's basically enough to keep a video alive forever on bittorrent, even throughout times of peak viewership as downloaders will also seed the chunks that they have.
        giantrobot 4y ago
        > Yes they do. See: bittorrent and webtorrent-based streaming services. No, people do not have crazy upload bandwidth. A private BitTorrent tracker group is immaterial. They're maintaining ad hoc infrastructure just by leaving a machine on 24/7 and maintaining favorable U/D ratios. Many groups also maintain seed boxes. This doesn't apply to the population at large. Most people are on phones or laptops on WiFi. They're not running 24/7 and in the case of phones a background service isn't even viable. Many people are on CGNAT and can't "serve" data without some intermediary infrastructure. As for retention, that's a pipe dream. A torrent more than a few years old may as well not exist unless it is extremely popular and maintains its popularity. There's innumerable dead torrents with no seeders.
grumbel 4y ago
> I don't think you need to incentivise people to host each other's data. Bitcoin is worth a trillion dollar. Meanwhile 20+ years of effort into creating P2P networks has resulted in pretty much nothing. No Linux distributions are hosted on P2P. No source control is on P2P. No messaging. Nothing of significance. Just a few tech demos here and there. Proper incentives can make all the difference and given the utter failure of getting any non-incentivised P2P off the ground in the last two decades, I think it's safe to say, it will be necessary. I don't see much point in repeating what hasn't worked in the past. > and they may host others' data for free like in BitTorrent BitTorrent isn't free. All the fancy piracy sites have share ratios. The public stuff more often than not has 0 seeders, lots of leechers and is just a lot of dead torrents in general. You are better off just using a centralized share hoster. Even your average Linux distribution agrees. BitTorrent might still be offered for ISO downloads, but it's hardly ever the default anymore, it's all back to plain old HTTPS.
- cowtools 4y ago
  >Bitcoin is worth a trillion dollar. Bitcoin is """"worth"""" a trillion dollars. It's not a free money machine, It's is a shitty payment system, not a P2P network unless you are sharing your blog over OP_RETURN. >Meanwhile 20+ years of effort into creating P2P networks has resulted in pretty much nothing IDK bittorrrent and IPFS just work without inventing a free money machine. You can download linux install disks over BitTorrent. >No source control is on P2P With a system like Git there is no need for such a centralized system. Each user has their own copy of the tree. >BitTorrent isn't free Bullshit. It is free. Go on TPB, it's still up. I use it every day and it is leagues faster than any alternative.
  - a3w 4y ago
    If someone sells 100 billion USD of bitcoins, the rest won't be worth 900 billion USD any more. A market price does not work that way. The rest would probably be worth another 100 billion or nothing at all. The price would drop even while selling off the first 10%, so even getting 10% of the nominal value out could be impossible when owning every last one at the start. Or to put it another way: No one, at any point, put that much money into the system. Also, it costs our environment a lot. Soon I would join the ranks of luddites, if science and anything digital was not that much more interesting to me than plainly surviving.

k__ 4y ago

The "hammer" were centralized systems, and now we have an alternative with Filecoin, Arweave, and the likes.

cowtools 4y ago
The hammer here is both. Cryptocurrrency is solving an incentive problem here that doesn't really exist. If anything, File hosters should not be the ones that pay for the hosting, it should be whoever is retriving the file, and those funds should go towards relay nodes and hosting nodes. filecoin's incentive structure essentially replicates that of the existing internet, where file hosters will have to find some other form of income like advertisements or tracking to cover their costs. Here is a comment I made yesterday on the matter: >Instead of "liking" or "upvoting" a post on a centralized forum, why not "rehost" or "forward" a post on a decentralized forum: essentially seeding it like in BitTorrent or "pinning" it in IPFS. "Followers" of a user donate their storage and bandwidth to them, combating bureaucratic attacks like delisting and DDoS against popular users.
- k__ 4y ago
  I think, this is the main problem. Nobody really wants to host other peoples stuff, especially not on their desktop or smartphone. That's where Filecoin comes in. But yes, I think the Filecoin model is to heavy weight right now.
  - cowtools 4y ago
    people have extra storage and bandwidth that they don't need. Anything that the public decides not to rehost is not worth being published.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      People do not have extra upload bandwidth to stream video. Plus the whole CGNAT issue of getting to a home device.
      - cowtools 4y ago
        Yes they do. See: bittorrent and webtorrent-based streaming services. My friend uses private trackers and his download speeds are unbelievable. But even on public trackers the download speeds are quite good. It does not take that many seeders to serve even a giant video file like an HD film, because even if upload speeds are a fraction of download speeds, the total upload bandwidth will be multiplied by the number of seeders. In fact, even an adequately-seeded torrent is orders of magnitudes faster to download than a youtube video or HTTP file for example. People like to keep backups of their favorite creator's works. On youtube, when a popular youtube video is taken down, it will usually be reuploaded by fans. From this, we can probably surmise that maybe 1/100000 viewers will archive a given video. That's basically enough to keep a video alive forever on bittorrent, even throughout times of peak viewership as downloaders will also seed the chunks that they have.
        giantrobot 4y ago
        > Yes they do. See: bittorrent and webtorrent-based streaming services. No, people do not have crazy upload bandwidth. A private BitTorrent tracker group is immaterial. They're maintaining ad hoc infrastructure just by leaving a machine on 24/7 and maintaining favorable U/D ratios. Many groups also maintain seed boxes. This doesn't apply to the population at large. Most people are on phones or laptops on WiFi. They're not running 24/7 and in the case of phones a background service isn't even viable. Many people are on CGNAT and can't "serve" data without some intermediary infrastructure. As for retention, that's a pipe dream. A torrent more than a few years old may as well not exist unless it is extremely popular and maintains its popularity. There's innumerable dead torrents with no seeders.

grumbel 4y ago

> I don't think you need to incentivise people to host each other's data. Bitcoin is worth a trillion dollar. Meanwhile 20+ years of effort into creating P2P networks has resulted in pretty much nothing. No Linux distributions are hosted on P2P. No source control is on P2P. No messaging. Nothing of significance. Just a few tech demos here and there. Proper incentives can make all the difference and given the utter failure of getting any non-incentivised P2P off the ground in the last two decades, I think it's safe to say, it will be necessary. I don't see much point in repeating what hasn't worked in the past. > and they may host others' data for free like in BitTorrent BitTorrent isn't free. All the fancy piracy sites have share ratios. The public stuff more often than not has 0 seeders, lots of leechers and is just a lot of dead torrents in general. You are better off just using a centralized share hoster. Even your average Linux distribution agrees. BitTorrent might still be offered for ISO downloads, but it's hardly ever the default anymore, it's all back to plain old HTTPS.

cowtools 4y ago
>Bitcoin is worth a trillion dollar. Bitcoin is """"worth"""" a trillion dollars. It's not a free money machine, It's is a shitty payment system, not a P2P network unless you are sharing your blog over OP_RETURN. >Meanwhile 20+ years of effort into creating P2P networks has resulted in pretty much nothing IDK bittorrrent and IPFS just work without inventing a free money machine. You can download linux install disks over BitTorrent. >No source control is on P2P With a system like Git there is no need for such a centralized system. Each user has their own copy of the tree. >BitTorrent isn't free Bullshit. It is free. Go on TPB, it's still up. I use it every day and it is leagues faster than any alternative.
- a3w 4y ago
  If someone sells 100 billion USD of bitcoins, the rest won't be worth 900 billion USD any more. A market price does not work that way. The rest would probably be worth another 100 billion or nothing at all. The price would drop even while selling off the first 10%, so even getting 10% of the nominal value out could be impossible when owning every last one at the start. Or to put it another way: No one, at any point, put that much money into the system. Also, it costs our environment a lot. Soon I would join the ranks of luddites, if science and anything digital was not that much more interesting to me than plainly surviving.