I don't see how a new blockchain is necessary in order to utilise unused storage space. Protocols like this work just fine without them, especially if having a centralised orchestrator (filecoin themselves) isn't an issue. Which in this case, I can't see why it would be.

Centralized orchestration of storage = maybe you can raise $10M.

Decentralized blockchain orchestration of storage = you can raise $200M... in the first hour.

I think the idea is the blockchain part allows people to be compensated at a price determined by the market for opening up their storage

Only that you do not need a blockchain for that. All you need is a market place, and that works perfectly fine without a blockchain. It's a needless complication imho.

exactly my point. Market dynamics existed long before blockchains.

But maybe we both miss a thing here. Maybe this is less about file storage and market place, but more about having an alternative way to mine cryptocurrency, which has its own value as long as speculation is ongoing. Well, maybe that's a bit obvious given the hype around the IPO.

That would mean filecoin is less about the use of decentral file storage, but more about giving people a different way to create something that looks like bitcoin that does not involve buying sold-out gpus, unlike ethereum, and storing files is more comfortable than having a gpu make noise all the time anyway.

so it's yet another way for people to play pretend-stock-market but using a different model of wasting computational resources? That's about what I expect from cryptocoins at this point.

Not really wasting in this case. There is at least that.

true, at least it's just storage space instead of spinning thousands of servers at 100% all the time and wasting huge amounts of electricity. At least, assuming that people don't start creating miner farms with huge amounts of space like they do with GPUs at the moment. I don't know how filecoin ties to the storage requirements of the customers though so that might be handled by market forces.

Come don't ruin it like that

storing files is a lot cheaper (energy-wise) than having a GPU continually crunch hashes, too.

Is bitcoin a needless complication of cash?

I mean what would motivate you (or a corporation) to put those hard drives that are there with no use to work while you wait for new clients or something, is like renting disk space, I don't know why it doesn't click on HN.

my question isn't whether utilising under-used hard drives is valuable - it's why on earth blockchains are necessary. You could provide all this functionality with client software connecting to a company's orchestration service. It doesn't add any value.

The lack of "a company" (read: censorship, speech codes, political influence, etc) can be considered to be a value. Decentralization is a Good Thing.

Decentralization is good when it solves actual problems. I think the problem most people here have with FileCoin is that it's a little bit too much like "Bitcoin but with file storage instead of CPU cycles" without really explaining what the problem is. Who is willing to pay for decentralized storage? Besides criminals and enthusiasts, I can't find a good use case.

Why besides?

I don't think it's good or bad, but it shows that there isn't a slam dunk product-market fit here and they are searching for what the value is.

I think by the way, that's absolutely vital to progress, and I am glad someone has convinced VC/Money to fund something potentially breakthrough (whether I think it is or not).