@Taek I have a polo account with 55k sia in it. I have Sia UI running with my wallet unlocked and I selected the recieve SIA button. I got a long hash. I tried to transfer my 55k sia to that address from polo but the transaction errored on out polo. Any idea why? I noticed the hash changes each time I select the recieve SIA button. Do I need to leave it up on the hash screen while I am sending and not click it again until complete?
EDIT - Nevermind I got it. I got a hash from the recieve sia button and left it there while I did the transaction and waited a few minutes. It's showing my 55k Sia now. :)
I think that Sia present a different scenario with regards to data loss: Unlike protecting yourself from catastrophic data loss where loosing the data itself is what needs to be avoided, you are in the case of Sia hosting erasure encoded data that is already secured against loss by being distributed across a large number of hosts. So, as a host you don't need to worry about data loss, only loss of income. If you loose data you of course also loose income. But, reducing the probability of data loss to ~zero comes at additional cost too, which cuts into your profit. So, you need to weigh the options of loosing data and income vs securing data at higher cost against each other.
In the end, I think there are several scenarios in which simply loosing the data, your storage fees and collateral might still be cheaper than insuring the hosted data against loss. The option you suggest, data duplication, is one option which I think will be more expensive than loosing your potential income. There are cheaper ways to protect data, using RAID for instance. Whether it is cheaper than loosing data in case of (improbable) data loss is something you need to calculate based on local conditions (hardware costs, electricity costs, taxes etc etc).
If the free GB is unchanged that probably means there has been no additional usage of the storage space covered by formed contracts. You only get paid for storage that is actually not used, and not for how much storage was negotiated in a contract. So then, it seems the unchanged expected SC earnings is explained by the unchanged GB used, and not affected by number of contracts.
The renter does pay attention to collateral. You cannot set collateral to negative, Sia doesn't have a negative type for currencies. (for hopefully obvious security reasons). Sia also doesn't have a currency type that can overflow, it just keeps adding digits as needed. This eliminates a huge class of common vulnerabilities. :)
If you set a low collateral, renters will automatically seek out hosts with a higher collateral instead. The users can't control this at the moment, everything is handled automatically. But people with lower price + higher collateral get priority.
I am the maintainer of SiaPulse. You are correct to observe that storage supply is much higher than demand. The numbers you mention are correct, though there are some intra-day variations. At time of writing, the host count is 73 hosts. This number is unlikely to grow significantly until demand picks up, because only then will hosts fill up at reasonable rates and make them profitable. Right now, running a host is not profitable.
It is unfortunate demand is so low, because the network is actually quite good at storing data. I store in excess of 0.7 TB on the network. The reason so few are uploading to the network is, I believe, down to a lack of tool/apps that takes the hassle out of uploading. To upload files you need to manually them in the Sia UI. There is no set-and-forget folder synchronization features in the UI. I wrote my own tool to do this (https://github.com/pmknutsen/gnome-shell-sia) but it is not widely used (because its written for a not widely used platform).
It has been said many times that Sia is not a consumer application, but better suited for big-data enterprises/institutions. Also, you can develop abstraction layers that offer backup / cloud storage apps on top of the Sia protocol, e.g. http://minebox.io. When these applications/hardware solutions mature I think we will see a dramatic uptick in utilization on the network.
We haven't rolled that out to the hostdb yet. Most of the host works in terms of public keys, and parts of the renter works in terms of public keys, but the hostdb still operates mostly on addresses.
@johnhowell has started work on the hostdb, and one of the goals is to (finally) fully support public-key based hosts. Even then, the network won't know about an updated/changed IP address until a host announcement hits the blockchain, so it will definitely hurt a host's visible uptime.
I'm not sure when the hostdb changes will be ready, but they are high priority because we're currently layering the final defenses against the easiest types of attacks against the Sia network.
I know that we are working on a lot of things in parallel right now. I'll go into detail on all of them more in our next roadmap update, which I plan on announcing next Tuesday.
Its more complicated than @4matter may imagine. But becoming a "money handling business" isn't the hardest thing to do- just needs to be sufficient motivation to do so.
I've been taking a hard look at building a few front ends to Sia coin to make it more accessible to "normal people". Sia needs to become more production ready before it truly makes sense. (It looks like the devs are well on their way to making this happen though)
You'd essentially need to create a pseudo exchange, your own storage pool/set of hosts and a dropbox style client for it to truly be a good solution. From a liability stand point you'd need to provide your own hosts, and vet any 3rd party hosts if you want to go that route.
Right now if you lose files you just lose your sia collateral- if you replaced this with hard USD you'd potentially have to deal with the liability of losing someone elses files. In theory this is not a big deal with contracts in place. However- after owning a datacenter for 7 years I can tell you this never works out the way you'd like. You eventually lose someones information- and lawsuits ensue. Implied merchant-ability is not fun. We won the law suit but it took 2 years and 250k to settle the score.
The other issue of building a production worthy product for normals on Sia is what it would do to the network as a whole. If I add 800TB to the network- and I'm receiving an outsized benefit because I'm front ending all the contracts to make sure my servers are used is that fair? It'd massively blow up the block chain. All it would take is an enterprise sales guy working for a few months to end up with close to a Petabyte in essentially a silo within the network.
I'd like to see Sia compete with all the big storage providers- but what makes sense for the consumer is what created these centralized datacenters to begin with- the spirit of the internet has always been decentralized- so everything Sia does needs to stay true to that ethos.
hi, Yes i have announced my host and i have seen the guild. I have looked further into the ports, my dell poweredge server is forwarding port 9981, and laptop is forwarding port 9982. but when i anounce on poweredge where all the server space is, it announces to port 9982. as i have a wallet on both my laptop and poweredge server.
As you stated sia forwarded the ports automatically for me.
I am currently changing the port its announcing on. we will wait and see what happens.
@Sand can I manually increase the PrimarySeedProgress value? how would I know what to change it to? My issue is that I had a wallet.json backup, then did some storage sharing/operations, and then my PC crashed. When I brought back the backup, it shows a different balance, similar to what you are referencing in your post.
We decided a long time ago that we'd prefer to run our own blockchain over building on top of another blockchain. And I continually think that it was the right decision - we were able to get more control over the core protocol, and if we need something added we only have to worry about convincing Sia users instead of an entire ecosystem.
We tend to be pretty conservative about dependencies here, and Ethereum has not shown itself to be stable, especially considering it hardforked to reverse a problem with one of their apps - it wasn't even a problem with the protocol itself!
Most of the heavy lifting for making your own blockchain is already complete, I don't think it would make any sense for us to switch gears now.