4 ms·

> Meanwhile you would expect an equilibrium here. The price going down forces some providers out of the market, but providers leaving the market brings the pric

> Meanwhile you would expect an equilibrium here. The price going down forces some providers out of the market, but providers leaving the market brings the price back up. Bringing the XIXth century equilibrium economics here is kind of hilarious, when it has been far out of the equilibrium price for the past two years. Node runners are already losing money, and have been doing so since the end of the bull run. The value of the FIL token isn't so much derived from an equilibrium in the supply and demand for storage, it's driven by the supply and demands of the coin on the crypto market, and if nodes start to give up in any meaningful fashion over the course of a few days or weeks, the crypto market will likely negatively react, driving the price of the token even lower. In the crypto markets, Keynes' animal spirit is in charge, nobody makes rational utility calculation. > At which point the defector is found out, you can prove it, and their reputation is in ashes. If I can make more money out of a single adversarial attack than it costs me to build up reputation, then who cares, I'll be doing it over and over again any day. > It seems to be storing more than a exabyte of data for someone. It is in fact storing a exabyte of “data” for “someone”. Compare that with BitTorrent, that was used by everyone and their mom before governments started to fight it. BitTorrent was voluntary only and was a massive success. Filecoin is for profit and a failure. > It's fungible because a used hard drive is a commodity product with a wide customer base. Try and sell 10PB of PoST-worn-out hard drives and see how long it takes. It's far from liquid.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> The value of the FIL token isn't so much derived from an equilibrium in the supply and demand for storage, it's driven by the supply and demands of the coin on the crypto market, and if nodes start to give up in any meaningful fashion over the course of a few days or weeks, the crypto market will likely negatively react, driving the price of the token even lower. The reason for this is that the price of FIL was initially too high for the amount of customer demand for storage it currently has, resulting in oversupply. But you only lose data as a result of sudden undersupply. If the network could lose 90% of its capacity over a month and still store all of the data it currently does, and then that happens, so what? Whereas if it actually lost enough capacity to create scarcity given the existing demand for storage, then demand for storage would drive the price of the coin back up, right? > If I can make more money out of a single adversarial attack than it costs me to build up reputation, then who cares, I'll be doing it over and over again any day. How are you going to do that with AI training or something? As soon as you get caught once, people go back and retroactively verify everything you've previously done, and then you not only lose any payment received for each calculation you forged, the model you screwed up gets recomputed using the money you didn't get to keep or had to stake in order to be trusted to do computations with lower frequency verification. > Compare that with BitTorrent, that was used by everyone and their mom before governments started to fight it. BitTorrent was voluntary only and was a massive success. BitTorrent is a great success for large, popular data. It's pretty much useless for storing anything with a low number of downloads. > Try and sell 10PB of PoST-worn-out hard drives and see how long it takes. It's far from liquid. Put functional 16TB hard drives on Amazon and eBay for $99.99. See how long they last. I'd guess less than six months before you've sold 10PB worth.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > If the network could lose 90% of its capacity over a month and still store all of the data it currently does, and then that happens, so what? If the network lose 90% of capacity over a month, you'll hear about grim the future for FIL is, on every crypto newsletter. And the price would tank even more. And if the network already lost 90% of its capacity it means that the economics is already very bad for node operators, so any worsening is likely to get even more node leaving the ship. Crypto going do dust because of crowd dynamics isn't completely unheard of… > As soon as you get caught once, people go back and retroactively verify everything you've previously done, How can they link me to my previous identity though… I'd just discard the previous wallet after having drained the available funds and restart from a clean state. > the model you screwed up gets recomputed using the money you didn't get to keep or had to stake in order to be trusted to do computations with lower frequency verification. The stacking must end at some point, and given that I can do damage with only a fraction percent adversarial computation, I can just make sure that my probability to get caught during the stacking time isn't enough for it to get a negative expected value. Your scheme is pathologically broken, and that's no surprise, you're not going to invent a billion dollar winning multiparty computation model as an argument on HN… > Put functional 16TB hard drives on Amazon and eBay for $99.99. See how long they last. I'd guess less than six months before you've sold 10PB worth. You'll need to send roughly a thousand of them, without getting bad reputation from all the disks that will break soon after the buyer receives it (because on that amount, and given the state of the disks, a lots will). Also, you're not really disagreeing with my assessment, 6 month is pretty illiquid by investment standard: it's even less liquid than real estate!
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > If the network lose 90% of capacity over a month, you'll hear about grim the future for FIL is, on every crypto newsletter. And the price would tank even more. But the supply of storage goes down, which the storage buyers now need to outbid each other for, so they need to buy the coin. I'm assuming it's also possible for the price of storage in FIL to go down as the price moves. If $1 US is 100 FIL but now providing 1TB/year of storage yields hundreds of FIL, you still earn several dollars US per TB stored. > How can they link me to my previous identity though… I'd just discard the previous wallet after having drained the available funds and restart from a clean state. No reputation is the same as bad reputation. To have a good reputation you have to engage in a large number of transactions which are less profitable to you because they're undergoing 100% verification. Building a good reputation allows you to make higher margins, which is valuable and therefore costly to sacrifice. You can't transfer funds you've staked against your reputation until the buyer has had a reasonable amount of time to try to prove you defected. > The stacking must end at some point, and given that I can do damage with only a fraction percent adversarial computation, I can just make sure that my probability to get caught during the stacking time isn't enough for it to get a negative expected value. Suppose you have a good reputation so you only undergo verification 10% of the time at random instead of 100% of the time. You also have to hold 20 times your revenue from this transaction as collateral during the verification window, or however much is necessary to more than compensate the buyer and punish you in the event that you defected. Now if you defect you have a 10% chance of losing 2000% of your payment. This has a negative expected value. Meanwhile it's now public that you defected and every other buyer still in the verification window is going to go back and verify 100% of their transactions with you, causing you to have a 100% chance of losing 2000% of your payment for those transactions if you defected. > You'll need to send roughly a thousand of them, without getting bad reputation from all the disks that will break soon after the buyer receives it (because on that amount, and given the state of the disks, a lots will). The annual failure rate for ~6 year old hard drives is ~2%. Presumably the failure rate over six months is about half that, and you have plenty of other functional drives to send replacements to satisfy the ~1% of customers who got unlucky. > Also, you're not really disagreeing with my assessment, 6 month is pretty illiquid by investment standard: it's even less liquid than real estate! That's only because you're trying to sell 10PB of hard drives. It's like saying shares of stock are illiquid because if you want to sell ten billion dollars of shares in the same company it might not be advisable to do it all on the same day. And even that you could still do, if you want to solicit a large buyer, which in this context would presumably be some kind of data center. But even supposing that it would take six months, what's your reasoning for why it has already persisted for longer than that period of time then?

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> The value of the FIL token isn't so much derived from an equilibrium in the supply and demand for storage, it's driven by the supply and demands of the coin on the crypto market, and if nodes start to give up in any meaningful fashion over the course of a few days or weeks, the crypto market will likely negatively react, driving the price of the token even lower. The reason for this is that the price of FIL was initially too high for the amount of customer demand for storage it currently has, resulting in oversupply. But you only lose data as a result of sudden undersupply. If the network could lose 90% of its capacity over a month and still store all of the data it currently does, and then that happens, so what? Whereas if it actually lost enough capacity to create scarcity given the existing demand for storage, then demand for storage would drive the price of the coin back up, right? > If I can make more money out of a single adversarial attack than it costs me to build up reputation, then who cares, I'll be doing it over and over again any day. How are you going to do that with AI training or something? As soon as you get caught once, people go back and retroactively verify everything you've previously done, and then you not only lose any payment received for each calculation you forged, the model you screwed up gets recomputed using the money you didn't get to keep or had to stake in order to be trusted to do computations with lower frequency verification. > Compare that with BitTorrent, that was used by everyone and their mom before governments started to fight it. BitTorrent was voluntary only and was a massive success. BitTorrent is a great success for large, popular data. It's pretty much useless for storing anything with a low number of downloads. > Try and sell 10PB of PoST-worn-out hard drives and see how long it takes. It's far from liquid. Put functional 16TB hard drives on Amazon and eBay for $99.99. See how long they last. I'd guess less than six months before you've sold 10PB worth.

littlestymaar 3y ago
> If the network could lose 90% of its capacity over a month and still store all of the data it currently does, and then that happens, so what? If the network lose 90% of capacity over a month, you'll hear about grim the future for FIL is, on every crypto newsletter. And the price would tank even more. And if the network already lost 90% of its capacity it means that the economics is already very bad for node operators, so any worsening is likely to get even more node leaving the ship. Crypto going do dust because of crowd dynamics isn't completely unheard of… > As soon as you get caught once, people go back and retroactively verify everything you've previously done, How can they link me to my previous identity though… I'd just discard the previous wallet after having drained the available funds and restart from a clean state. > the model you screwed up gets recomputed using the money you didn't get to keep or had to stake in order to be trusted to do computations with lower frequency verification. The stacking must end at some point, and given that I can do damage with only a fraction percent adversarial computation, I can just make sure that my probability to get caught during the stacking time isn't enough for it to get a negative expected value. Your scheme is pathologically broken, and that's no surprise, you're not going to invent a billion dollar winning multiparty computation model as an argument on HN… > Put functional 16TB hard drives on Amazon and eBay for $99.99. See how long they last. I'd guess less than six months before you've sold 10PB worth. You'll need to send roughly a thousand of them, without getting bad reputation from all the disks that will break soon after the buyer receives it (because on that amount, and given the state of the disks, a lots will). Also, you're not really disagreeing with my assessment, 6 month is pretty illiquid by investment standard: it's even less liquid than real estate!
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > If the network lose 90% of capacity over a month, you'll hear about grim the future for FIL is, on every crypto newsletter. And the price would tank even more. But the supply of storage goes down, which the storage buyers now need to outbid each other for, so they need to buy the coin. I'm assuming it's also possible for the price of storage in FIL to go down as the price moves. If $1 US is 100 FIL but now providing 1TB/year of storage yields hundreds of FIL, you still earn several dollars US per TB stored. > How can they link me to my previous identity though… I'd just discard the previous wallet after having drained the available funds and restart from a clean state. No reputation is the same as bad reputation. To have a good reputation you have to engage in a large number of transactions which are less profitable to you because they're undergoing 100% verification. Building a good reputation allows you to make higher margins, which is valuable and therefore costly to sacrifice. You can't transfer funds you've staked against your reputation until the buyer has had a reasonable amount of time to try to prove you defected. > The stacking must end at some point, and given that I can do damage with only a fraction percent adversarial computation, I can just make sure that my probability to get caught during the stacking time isn't enough for it to get a negative expected value. Suppose you have a good reputation so you only undergo verification 10% of the time at random instead of 100% of the time. You also have to hold 20 times your revenue from this transaction as collateral during the verification window, or however much is necessary to more than compensate the buyer and punish you in the event that you defected. Now if you defect you have a 10% chance of losing 2000% of your payment. This has a negative expected value. Meanwhile it's now public that you defected and every other buyer still in the verification window is going to go back and verify 100% of their transactions with you, causing you to have a 100% chance of losing 2000% of your payment for those transactions if you defected. > You'll need to send roughly a thousand of them, without getting bad reputation from all the disks that will break soon after the buyer receives it (because on that amount, and given the state of the disks, a lots will). The annual failure rate for ~6 year old hard drives is ~2%. Presumably the failure rate over six months is about half that, and you have plenty of other functional drives to send replacements to satisfy the ~1% of customers who got unlucky. > Also, you're not really disagreeing with my assessment, 6 month is pretty illiquid by investment standard: it's even less liquid than real estate! That's only because you're trying to sell 10PB of hard drives. It's like saying shares of stock are illiquid because if you want to sell ten billion dollars of shares in the same company it might not be advisable to do it all on the same day. And even that you could still do, if you want to solicit a large buyer, which in this context would presumably be some kind of data center. But even supposing that it would take six months, what's your reasoning for why it has already persisted for longer than that period of time then?