Technology

34863 readers

142 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml

Keep the Web Free, Say No to Web3 (yesterweb.org)

submitted 2 years ago by tomasz@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.ml

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] poVoq@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Thanks for the clarification regarding replication on IPFS... but I guess you agree that a single node storage on IPFS doesn't really have much positive advantage over just putting it on a basic http server?

about the ecological aspect of filecoin i’m not really sure, but I thought they aren’t using proof of work, rather proof of space, which doesn’t carry much ecological consequences, other than the energy to run the drives and the computer they’re attached to, but since these drives are used for legitimate applications of storing data, it’s not any worse environmentally than any other cloud storage provider

This is also what I thought until I looked into the actual hardware requirements of Filecoin, which require a hoster to purchase the very latest AFAIK ~~Intel~~ AMD based hardware (for the required cryptography). In addition Filecoin has a really high overall storage need Vs. usable storage, something like 100:1 if I recall correctly (edit: seems more like 20:1). This together means that Filecoin requires the replacement of huge amount of hardware and most of it is wasted due to the inefficiency.

was there some shady stuff going on? i’ve heard that filecoin has had some weird stuff going on, but never really paid close attention to it…

Something like 30% of the total possible volume of Filecoins was pre-minted and exclusively sold to accredited investors, which primarily included some really shady venture capitalist firms. Edit: the problem there being not that they could control the network, but rather that they will get absurdly rich if Filecoin ever takes off.

[–] k_o_t@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

but I guess you agree that a single node storage on IPFS doesn’t really have much positive advantage over just putting it on a basic http server?

same as with bittorrent? a single seeder isn't much better than just setting up a regular http server, but if more people decide to download and seed it, then you have infinite horizontal scale in bandwidth and resilience, all in a decentralized manner, same thing with ipfs

it's already been used for large scale backups by sci hub and libgen

This is also what I thought until I looked into the actual hardware requirements of Filecoin, which require a hoster to purchase the very latest AFAIK Intel based hardware (for the required cryptography).

i don't really see a problem in that, if they are going to compete with enterprise grade storage offers then you need good hardware to run it

Filecoin has a really high overall storage need Vs. usable storage, something like 100:1 if I recall correctly.

that seems awfully high to have any semblance of practicality, could you provide a source on that?

Something like 30% of the total possible volume of Filecoins was pre-minted and exclusively sold to accredited investors, which primarily included some really shady venture capitalist firms.

yeah, pre-mining sucks, but that's just how ICOs work, no?

[–] poVoq@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

For example, a 32GiB expands to ~480GiB during the sealing process.

Source. (And yes I stand corrected and it is only about 10:1 on a single miner at least, but I think there is also some further significant network replication involved). Edit: also note the significant other hardware requirements. Edit2: now I remember where the higher ratio came from... typically commercial data-storage is done on Raid6 or similar, so storing something 10:1 on an raid system gives you the a even worse ratio, but maybe not 100:1.

Yeah, ICOs suck, but that is just how Capitalism works, no? /s