1. uptime depends on the hosts, which are anonymous, contract free users like me and you. You can store all your data on my pc, then I just realize I make much more on burst coins and who cares.
2. What? What do you mean by reliability.
3. How? Download bandwidth depends on a connection between me and you, and I doubt neither of us has a network comparable to professional services which have multi hundreds gigabits of connections.
1. Uptime depends on hosts yes, but there is redundancy. You're telling me all hosts will just abandon Sia? There are businesses already setup to offer hosting for Sia (there is one specific one that comes to mind on Sia's forums. Look around there.)
2. Sorry, by reliability I meant redundance!
3. You can download from many hosts at once on the Sia network. It's block-storage based. Like I said, it's torrent-esque because you can download from many sources at once.
So it solves a problem that has already free alternatives. It solves a non existing problem.
Uh, where can I get free, fast, anonymous, encryption-by-default hosting?
Another use I can think of for Sia: lossy big data. Store lots of records onto the network that are not important until the network becomes larger. Once it's larger (so more redundance), important data could be put there too.
You're free to believe in what you want, but you can bring no valid logic to counter my arguments.
Why do you say bullshit like this? To scare people? Anyway, let the debate continue. I look forward to your responses.
1/2. Redundancy costs. A lot. Who's gonna pay 17.60 to store 1 TB on Sia (3x redundancy) when he can get illimited TBs on Dropbox (and much more services, and doesn't pay bandwidth.
Why do you say bullshit like this? To scare people? Anyway, let the debate continue. I look forward to your responses.
Sick of people buying and pumping things they don't understand. I'm actually really sorry for them.
You need common sense to understand that to store your files on Sia (with the infinite downs Sia has compared to a professional use) it's either cheap for the guest and low (to not) profitable for the host, or it's expensive for the guest and profitable for the host.
Right now it's basically both, it's close to 6$ (no bandwidth included) for no redundancy storage per terabyte, hosts meanwhile make basically no buck, go check on siahub.
Siacoin talks about 2$/TB. Now use your logic, who would ever make a hosting computer for 2$/month/terabyte. Nobody.
So again, it's either cheap for guest and unprofitable for host, or it's expensive for the guest and profitable for the host. It can't be both for sure.
Meanwhile the marketcap is 500 billions. For a network that store 27 terabytes of data.
When the dot-com bubble of cryptos will hit (and we all know that it's going to hit us sooner or later, entire cryptomarket is bigger than the GDP of many countries in the world) Siacoin won't be one of those saving itself.
You may be interested in speculating, I feel myself more of an investor. I try to understand what I buy, I run the numbers.
They don't work for Siacoin, sorry.
Aquazi, you're pretty much coming across as an absolute idiot to everyone else that isn't trying to own that space in the way that you are. Your entire argument can pretty much be summed up as such: "I can't see any real world valuation to this, therefore there isn't any and never will be. So, you all are so stupid for thinking beyond what my own capabilities allow me to conceive of with regard to any potential market!"
Wow, great argument. Not to mention that it's formulated entirely around baseless assertions that you're foolishly presenting as absolutes - such as "it's either cheap for guest and unprofitable for host, or it's expensive for the guest and profitable for the host. It can't be both for sure." Why can it NOT be both cheap for users and profitable for hosts...? Because you say so?
The larger the market of users, the more profitable it will likely become to the providers. You know - as is the case with pretty much every single creation of value in the history of mankind. There's no stipulation that user costs must increase; rather, costs are most likely to actually DECREASE or, as is also not uncommon, costs will remain the same for an increased offering from the providers. This really isn't hard to figure out at all.... Look at any single market that has grown over the last 20 years - flat screen TVs, streaming content, the ability to do fast and seamless global transactions for goods and services, etc...
Ok, so... It's 1995 and TVs exist. Anyone that envisioned making a better TV was an idiot? Because a $10,000 30" flat screen TV wasn't viable for everyone to put in their homes? So it's a stupid thought? Well, look where we are now... Cheaper for consumer and continuing profit for manufacturers.
Photographs and newspapers and televised newscasts have existed for decades... So, obviously there's no need for innovation in that space, right? Yet, here we are... people are receiving pictures of their friends and family, updates on what's happening in their lives, 24/7 access to live news reports, etc etc etc... And while the cost to users are little or nothing... The providers of those services are undoubtedly making a profit. They likely wouldn't exist if that wasn't the case.
It's not much different with the general concept of crypto-currencies. Where you and a lot of people are unable to conceive value... others are finding it every day. It's not getting bigger every day because there's inherently no value behind it; the fact that value is being uncovered and capitalized upon more and more in this space every single day is exactly why it's progressing the way that it is. And the more people that are able to make use of something - the lower the barrier to entry is for them - hte more valuable that space becomes.
You know what's useless to me if I live in the 1800's? A satellite for telecommunications and an enormous range of other applications. But I sure am glad that no one ever proclaimed to the world that the idea of putting a functioning satellite in orbit was "stupid" due to the thought that there's no existing market for such a thing.
Is there a market for decentralized, inherently-encrypted storage solutions that potentially resolve a litany of issues with traditional mechanisms? Well, that's for those existing providers - or any entrepreneur that can come up with an improved model over existing technology - to decide. But, apparently they shouldn't... Because you know everything and have already dictated to the world that there's nothing to be seen here. Good for you - I guess we should all be grateful that you already know everything and can stop us from making a huge mistake.
If I had to guess, I might think it's more likely that you stand to lose - in some fashion or another - by the widespread acceptability and adoption of this technology and that you're nothing more than a troll here. If that's not the case, it would behoove you to keep your mouth shut and just try to listen and learn instead of asserting how stupid everyone is.
"Sick of people buying and pumping things they don't understand." ..... More like: Sick of people running their mouths about something THEY don't understand...
