Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>If we assume that the 30 hosts go offline independently

I wonder how reasonable this assumption really is. For regular CPU-bound crypto-mining we see that it tends to centralize geographically in zones where electricity, workforce and real-estate space to build a datacenter are cheap.

Assuming that Sia ends up following a similar distribution, it wouldn't be surprising if several of these hosts ended up sharing a single point of failure.

Beyond that, if only copying stuff around three times to provide tolerance is enough to lower the costs to $2/TB/Mo, why aren't centralized commercial offerings already offering something like that? Just pool three datacenters with 95+% uptime around the world and you should get the same numbers without the overhead of the decentralized solution, no? Surely the overhead of accounting for hosts going offline and redistributing the chunks alone must be very non-trivial. With a centralized, trusted solution it would be much simpler to deal with.

Or is the real catch that Sia has very high latency?



I'm guessing there's not a lot of 95% datacenters that don't have heavy generators or UPS on site. You'd have to basically build a datacenter that has lower guarantees.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: