@Unit22 I am not sia, but I think that approach of partnering is a better way than trying to fix some little solution stand alone. I hope SIA will be the back bone of decntralized storage with good bridiges and integrations to 3rd parties for two reasos; to boost demand for storage and to have the better user experience combindng this ability with already proven solutions eg in the streaming area - could be back up solutions as well, could be file sharing solutins too.
SC may be worth shit when the miner hits the market.
It could and should if the network isn't better than now from both (renter and hoster) sides. Regardless of ASIC existence.
I don't believe the development will stall for the coming months so I'm sure the network state, demand for storage and profitability for hosters will go up.
From my point of view the coin price should be depending more on the offer/demand relation for storage and less on mining. That's where Sia differs from most of other cryptocurrencies. As long there is substantially less demand for coins used to rent storage as there are mined coins I see no reason for a big rise in price for the coin.
@osoverflow - it is a very good question. I'm not sia, but as I understand is, SIA devs want to be the back bone of decentralized storage. However there are pans to do simple file sharing in the road map.
I don't think the intention is to build full blown services around the storage as you suggest there, but idea is for 3rd parties to either use SIA as an alternative to storage solutions already build into any services around or to have new services arising around SIA.
Today the only way to interact with the storage system is by getting SIA coins, using the core wallet/client and understnading how the whole thing works. All storage is paid for by SIA coins that is highly volatile, so you'd need to find a way around letting the masses pay somehow easy
If any new service couldtake that hazzle out of it it would be very convenient. The storage will by definition be dead cheap due to the nature the price is calcualted and due to the participants in the network.
@bryan per my research- the renter is not necessarily charged for the 3x redundancy..but their contracted 'space allocation' (amount of space they purchased) is charged.
Example: I buy 30GB of data. If I upload 10GB the system is not charging me in additional SC, but it appears via the contract file that the overall amount of data used is 30MB due to the 3x redundancy.
This can be a problem for hosters who may be sacrificing additional storage capacity for no charge.
I mentioned this in dev just yesterday. I understand what we are told, but what we are told versus what we can prove and see can be 2 different things. The 'renter contract' file shows what I am saying.