Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The big issue with this article is that once you take a deeper look at any of the examples, they are complete BS. A good example is Filecoin:

> So, for example, you have things like Filecoin, which describes itself as β€œan open-source cloud storage marketplace, protocol, and incentive layer.”

If you actually look at the finances for Filecoin, it costs the network about 10x times more to store data than the centralized alternative Backblaze. Who is going to pay 10x more for storage?

The reason for this cost discrepancy is obvious once you look at the technical details of Filecoin. Because of the decentralized overhead, the mining requirements are ridiculous. Just look at https://docs.filecoin.io/mine/hardware-requirements/. 8+ core CPU. A powerful GPU. For a data storage node!

Details for the cost computation for Filecoin:

Computing the cost of the Filecoin network is quite simple. https://filfox.info/en reports that miners are being paid 326,077 FIL a day to store 13.673 EiB. This is 0.0229 FIL/TiB per day. Which corresponds to 0.687 FIL/TiB per month. Which is $34.84 / TiB per month. For a single copy. So you probably want two at $70 / TiB per month.

Backblaze is $5 / TiB per month for a redundantly stored copy.

Currently Filecoin is priced at 0.02% the cost of Amazon S3 to store data (you can view all the stats https://file.app/). Specifically, the price is ~$0.0000025 USD per GiB per month.

The stats you mentioned above is the block reward subsidy that the network provides for Filecoin Storage Providers (similar to how Bitcoin miners earn bitcoin for mining), so the incentive for Storage Providers is to charge clients as little as possible so they can store real data, and earn the associated block rewards.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact