Re:Investor revolt and legal dispute delay Filecoin plans
by solarkraft on Tuesday August 18, 2020 @06:59PM
(#24205347)
But there are already pinning services, conventionally paid by the person wanting to have something pinned.
Of course you can build something super distributed and fractional on top of that. Maybe d.tube and lbry are such things, but the more venture capital is involved the less I tend to trust such efforts.
Re:Investor revolt and legal dispute delay Filecoin plans
by brian_cloutier on Tuesday August 18, 2020 @09:29PM
(#24206276)
Paying some pinning service is, architecturally, not much different than paying S3 to store your files.
Filecoin turns file storage into a marketplace, which is a significant improvement. Currently S3 charges a large premium because you wouldn't trust many other people to reliably hold on to your data. I expect this will cause the cost of file storage to plummet.
Your venture capital heuristic is a good one, but I think the rest of what we know about Filecoin overwhelms it.
Re:Investor revolt and legal dispute delay Filecoin plans
by wmf on Tuesday August 18, 2020 @02:17PM
(#24202172)
Historically, blockchain services have suffered from the situation that their price is pumped up to levels that cannot be justified by any level of adoption. So the resulting incentives are just for speculation and further pump-and-dump cycles instead of actual usage.
I don't understand the basis for this accusation. I thought the reason for Filecoin was essentially to provide an incentive layer to run IPFS nodes. The problem with IPFS was that it largely drew from volunteer efforts and therefore if you want to actually want IPFS to be a high-performing and low cost service you need to provide a market incentive structure to run a node.