@genjitsu well said, i quite agree with you. I don't currently hold any sia right now as i was waiting to see if there would be any huge developments on the horizon and the wallet well, it just doesn't work for me. Need a better, more reliable, better documented client/wallet before i will take the plunge. But sia has plenty or room for growth. Is just the rumors of potential backdoor weakness that puts me off.
Myself, I'm most interested in setting it up among trusted nodes, so with no currency exchange occurring at all. Ala Syncthing (but with much better redundancy coding), or ala Tahoe-LAFS (but without a central gateway), basically.
@Taek Wait, isn't the payment channel for downloads only opened with the original renter? Does that mean that the renter will be the one paying for any downloads?
No, the protocol is actually constructed such that anyone with a file contract payment channel to the host can pay to download a file. When you download a file in the new protocol, you download by the file's hash instead of by the file contract. But... the fact remains that you need some way to pay the host.
I will point out, however, that if you really insist on only using "trusted" hosts of the Amazon S3 type, then there are other decentralized solutions that do not have all these peer-to-peer and blockchain mechanisms
No I'm only interested in SIA because of the P2P aspects, and I was worried about having to use a whitelist, but I did not really realise at also contained PoW for hosts. Which makes it a lot easier for me to trust any random node, because I know I am not likely to be surrounded by spoofed ones.
ok. In a pinch, it'll be fine as long each the port numbers are different, and the folders are different.
Long term, I think it makes sense to add the concept of 'identities' to the wallet and renter, such that one person could have multiple non-overlapping identities in each. But, that's definitely pretty far in the future (unless someone wants to volunteer their time to write the code :))
If Sia started charging coins for bandwidth/throughput (which I think is in your plans), you could even have the first(?) onion network with strict blockchain-based accounting!
One day we may go there. But the implementation overhead of onion routing is high, the expertise requirement is high, and the amount of time it would take to get working is probably 6-9 months. That would be following 1-3 months of raw research to figure out the best way to go about it and to educate ourselves such that we don't make any dumb mistakes. And even then most experts would probably tell people to stay away from the newbie platform (because it's got less review, etc.)
So... one day we will probably chase that. But not in the near future. There are a lot of privacy features I hope we eventually have. (including things like coinjoin)
(note: joash's mining pool is a decentralized mining pool, is fancier than the one I described above, but would also be much better for the ecosystem. Also, it's got a lot of the implementation finished already)
Sia does not compete with Glacier, Sia competes with Amazon S3. So the competition point is actually >$25/Mo. Meaning hosts can charge as much as $15 / TB / Mo (at 1.5 redundancy) and still be competitive (in the long run).
So, it stands to reason that the network's capacity would continue to grow as long as the storage is utilized.
Yes, I believe the number one reason we aren't seeing more hosts is that there's no utilization. And the number one reason we aren't seeing utilization is because the software isn't ready yet to handle massive volumes of files. But it will be soon :)
Yes, that too. Now my intention is not to play down the importance of a strong community. But in the long run the community can take you only so far and that is somehow made visible with the situation of Nxt imo. Superior technology with a good community is in the shadow of inferior but heavily marketed cryptos. So hard core coordinated marketing does have it's place and might even be imperative at some point.
Indeed, that was a large portion of the original idea behind making siacoin inflationary. We want people to use siacoin for storage, not for hoarding or speculating. And, speculating can even destabilize the currency (as we're seeing on Poloniex today). It's not really good for the network to have the price flailing around a lot.
Price flailing is unavoidable while we're in the early phases of growth, but the permanently inflationary aspect of Sia should help eliminate some of the speculation and should encourage using the coin for it's primary purpose - buying storage.
Ah, I realize I missed the original question of the post. Given the number of hosts who are offering 250GB or more of storage, I would guess that the price would increase fairly noticeably if you were to upload 1TB of data today. I'm also guessing that if you moved over 100GB at a time, the price would not increase significantly because people would add more storage to take advantage of the financial opportunity.
I'm more or less making up a number, but off the top of my head it seems reasonable to grow the demand portion of the network by 5-10% per week without dramatically affecting the price. And, even if you do grow the network faster than that, the price should only bump temporarily.
I will advise that the current renting software seems to be buggy enough that I would discourage uploading 1TB of data until we've got the next iteration out. I'm guessing most of your coins would be drained into file contracts that were never utilized. You would get the coins back, but only after 12 weeks. It pains me to ask you to wait, but I do think that's the smartest move. I don't think the software is ready yet.