Oh, ok. I have been testing the restore of my renter data a few times, and a few attempts seem to have failed. So I "abandoned" those renter contracts and started over with blank renter data. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't causing problems, lol.
I only set my allowance to 3000-6000 SiaCoin, and all the contracts completed forming. So I'm glad I'm not the rogue renter!
I don't fully understand the question, but basically you are only charged for what you are using. If you are doing incremental backups, then you will only be increasing the amount of storage by a tiny bit each day.
If you were going to use Sia, what you would want to do is have a 'siad' instance running in the background of your machine, and then send it your snapshots when you have them. If you want to do deduplication, you would need to do that before Sia receives the snapshots. Is that along the lines of what you are looking for?
Well, I agree that open host IPs is not very good. However I don't know any blockchain-based system, where IP-addresses of nodes are hidden.
Monero devs, for example, are working on protocol improvement that will hide IP-address for node which first broadcasts transaction, so third-party won't be able to track where the transaction came from. But even with this improvement IPs of blockchain network nodes are public.
On the other hand, considering that every stored piece of data is encrypted, what's the point of hiding the IP-address of host? Yeah, the world knows that this IP-address hosts a storage space for Sia. So what?
I don't believe it is possible that just running a node (and hosting storage) may be forbidden by law. That would be ridiculous. How can you ban running an open-source software?
Also there are Tor and other solutions if you really care to be "invisible".
That's correct. The 50k siacoins is used as a promise that you will be a good host/reliable host and that you will keep storing data for the next few months. You get the collateral back once you have fulfilled the contracts, but then frequently you'll put the collateral right back into your next contracts.
Over time, you will get revenue as well. And, if at any point you wish to stop, you can turn off the 'Accepting Contracts' field, which means you will stop forming new contracts and eventually be able to collect all of your collateral again.
yeah. The whole process is a bit involved, but basically when you allocate an allowance of like 5KS to Sia, you form a bunch of contracts with hosts allocating a total of approximately 5 KS. Based on the host prices, you get an estimate for how much storage you will be able to upload. This can be affected by how frequently you download things, etc.
The graphical interface for the renter will likely never have all that much customization, we aren't really targeting high customizability with our graphical client. However, the API is a different story, and we do plan on adding a bunch of customization that third-party apps and developers can utilize.
Already the API is a lot more powerful than what the GUI allows you to do (for example, the GUI sets the redundancy for you, but in the API you can add your own redundancy settings).
@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).