Siafunds were distributed in a crowd-sale a while back to fund development. 10,000 Siafunds were issued in total, and about 1,000 were sold in the crowd-sale.
You cannot buy Siafunds any longer, except from an existing Siafund holder. Only a few Siafunds are listed for sale occasionally in the Slack Trading channel or in the Siacoin Trading bitcointalk thread.
What is the mechanism by which SC gets distributed to Sia Fund holders? Is this integrated in the protocol or done periodically?
A 3.9% fee is paid to Siafund holders on the storage costs of each file contract.
That fee is distributed equally among all 10,000 Siafunds.
So, if you paid 100 SC in storage cost 3.9 Siacoins (from the 100) are distributed equally in shares of 3.9/10000 to each Siafund.
@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 :)