Siacoin Epic Monster Moon

[currypto]

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.

[Aquazi]

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.

[currypto]

So what is your go-to solution for decentralized storage then?...Because unless there is incentive to host a file (money), decentralized storage is never going to fly. Just look at torrents. There are many torrents where there are no seeders anymore for a file.

I've invested in Sia too and I'm open to good advice. I will be transparent and say I have not run the storage/price numbers myself, but you bring up a very valid point. I will get back to this aspect of the conversation later.

Skipping ahead: if you have 10-15 big host providers, I can't see why Sia would fail. There is already 1 definite one. Sia is simply the middle contract layer.

Users -> Storage provider businesses -> Sia -> Storage host businesses

Now the next question might be: why not cut out the middle man?

Because storage provider businesses may offer on-site storage as well as decentralized storage or a mix of both. I can see this working out well.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Aquazi]

So what is your go-to solution for decentralized storage then?...Because unless there is incentive to host a file (money), decentralized storage is never going to fly. Just look at torrents. There are many torrents where there are no seeders anymore for a file.

I've invested in Sia too and I'm open to good advice. I will be transparent and say I have not run the storage/price numbers myself, but you bring up a very valid point. I will get back to this aspect of the conversation later.

Skipping ahead: if you have 10-15 big host providers, I can't see why Sia would fail. There is already 1 definite one. Sia is simply the middle contract layer.

Users -> Storage provider businesses -> Sia -> Storage host businesses

Now the next question might be: why not cut out the middle man?

Because storage provider businesses may offer on-site storage as well as decentralized storage or a mix of both. I can see this working out well.

What are your thoughts on this?

I don't even understand what's the benefit of decentralized storage to be honest.

Or the emphasis on the encryption techonology.

I mean, you can encrypt your files and use a "regular" file hosting service anyway.

I kind of see your point about storage providers utilizing Sia on their own, but I don't know what are their costs just for infrastructure, hardware, network and all of the employees.

I don't think that when you are giving 7$/terabyte to Dropbox (e.g.) most of it goes to the material aspect. I'm pretty sure they buy millions of drives for much less than we can get one.

But then again, why would they need to do so on Sia and not their own like banks did with R3 rather than using Ripple?

I think I'm kind of missing your point tho.

[currypto]

The benefit of decentralized storage is redundancy/availability, mostly. In theory, more redundancy means faster download speeds and also cheaper prices. If every single person in the world shared their hard drive there would be a lot of empty space up for use! I would say the majority of the time I see relatives only using 40% of their hard drives. I would say this is a fair estimate, up to 70%.

That's really my only point! To me it's up to the people if Sia succeeds or not. They either care about the ideologies and benefits behind decentralized storage, or they don't! So it will be interesting. The announcement of the ASICs was fantastic news because it puts more power into the hands of the people - now we just have to see if they want that power or not.

If we look at history, people have a tendency to not want power/hold responsibility. Otherwise we'd all be running our own businesses and powering our houses off the grid.

We have a very anti-share world right now.

So...yeah I hate to say it, but I think ultimately because of social constructs, Sia will fail unless it's used *transparently*. People using Sia without even knowing. I think there is real money to be made there. Linking many powerful storage hosts together sounds god damn fantastic (Google drive, Dropbox, Skydrive combination anyone?). Again, Sia's power is in its contract-based logic.

[bionioncle]

So what is your go-to solution for decentralized storage then?...Because unless there is incentive to host a file (money), decentralized storage is never going to fly. Just look at torrents. There are many torrents where there are no seeders anymore for a file.

I've invested in Sia too and I'm open to good advice. I will be transparent and say I have not run the storage/price numbers myself, but you bring up a very valid point. I will get back to this aspect of the conversation later.

Skipping ahead: if you have 10-15 big host providers, I can't see why Sia would fail. There is already 1 definite one. Sia is simply the middle contract layer.

Users -> Storage provider businesses -> Sia -> Storage host businesses

Now the next question might be: why not cut out the middle man?

Because storage provider businesses may offer on-site storage as well as decentralized storage or a mix of both. I can see this working out well.

What are your thoughts on this?

At first I liked the idea of sia but when I think more about it, it don't see the future of it. Business will likely not use Sia, they want consistent uptime, bandwith, support, solution, etc and most of all, they want to know who they are dealing business with so if there is any problem, at least they can dispute the provider. For end-user, they sure care about their anonymity, privacy and security that is why they may not trust single cloud storage provider but then there are the uptime and bandwidth problem. When you upload your file on Sia host, it is still on single computer. If that computer have problem then your data is hurt. Cloud provider company have backup plan and rarely let this happen.

I think that Maidsafe have better approach. Instead of upload a file to unknown single host, it first encrypt the data and then split it into piece. Each host store only a part of your file. Moreover, for the same piece, they are copied and stored on more than one host so even if one go down, there is still another one. They also say that if a host shut down, the pieces on that host will be first copy and upload to other hosts but I don't know how they will do it. There is a problem, if one computer go down, how can it make sure that all file are upload before the host shut down. However, there are more than one copy of your file that was uploaded so I think that Maidsafe approach is better than Sia.

[currypto]

When there are several big hosts you can expect a consistent 100% uptime and very good bandwidth.

The "maidsafe" approach is what Sia does too...Not sure what you're talking about. https://forum.sia.tech/topic/108/how-sia-works

What you described is what most block-based network storage does. This approach has been used for over 15 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venti

[Aquazi]

When there are several big hosts you can expect a consistent 100% uptime and very good bandwidth.

The "maidsafe" approach is what Sia does too...Not sure what you're talking about. https://forum.sia.tech/topic/108/how-sia-works

What you described is what most block-based network storage does. This approach has been used for over 15 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venti

So to store 100 gigabytes, an effective 3 terabytes is used in 10-to-30?

One has to pay 30 hosts for that?

[currypto]

When there are several big hosts you can expect a consistent 100% uptime and very good bandwidth.

The "maidsafe" approach is what Sia does too...Not sure what you're talking about. https://forum.sia.tech/topic/108/how-sia-works

What you described is what most block-based network storage does. This approach has been used for over 15 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venti

So to store 100 gigabytes, an effective 3 terabytes is used in 10-to-30?

One has to pay 30 hosts for that?

No, because the full file doesn't need to exist on all 30 hosts - if you read the page I linked, Taek links to Reed-Solomon error correction encoding. These are codes that can reconstruct missing parts of a file.

You would pay 30 hosts, but not for 30 copies of the file.

In other words, you'd pay for the 100Gb usage, plus whatever's needed for the reed-solomon error correction.

[Aquazi]

When there are several big hosts you can expect a consistent 100% uptime and very good bandwidth.

The "maidsafe" approach is what Sia does too...Not sure what you're talking about. https://forum.sia.tech/topic/108/how-sia-works

What you described is what most block-based network storage does. This approach has been used for over 15 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venti

So to store 100 gigabytes, an effective 3 terabytes is used in 10-to-30?

One has to pay 30 hosts for that?

No, because the full file doesn't need to exist on all 30 hosts - if you read the page I linked, Taek links to Reed-Solomon error correction encoding. These are codes that can reconstruct missing parts of a file.

You would pay 30 hosts, but not for 30 copies of the file.

In other words, you'd pay for the 100Gb usage, plus whatever's needed for the reed-solomon error correction.

This is an interesting concept any idea how much space more is needed?

[currypto]

Alright, well...Hold onto your seatbelt

From Wikipedia:

It is able to detect and correct multiple symbol errors. By adding t check symbols to the data, a Reed–Solomon code can detect any combination of up to t erroneous symbols, or correct up to ⌊t/2⌋ symbols.

Lets start small, with a 16 byte file. We will go back to your 100GB example very shortly.

In order to repair any 2 missing bytes, we need to store 2 "check symbols" or also called "parity bits" (in this case 16 parity bits). That alone is pretty amazing.

The upper limit of this correction as Wikipedia says is floor(t/2). Makes sense...

16 byte file, 8 random bytes in the file go missing. We need 16/2 check symbols to reconstruct the entire file.

Now in reality, with say a ton of image files at 1-2MB, it will be very rare for half the file to go missing.

With 100GB that's even more true. Practically you would never store 50GB of check symbols, but instead 1GB or maybe even less.

The beauty is Reed-Solomon can be used with other error correction or redundancy techniques.

It's up to Sia developers to determine how many check symbols each file is assigned. This may be a fixed percent or something that could be user-adjustable in the future!

[cryptoduke]

I don't think people realize how efficient redundancy has become... It isn't a 1:1 as some foolishly think.

[currypto]

I don't think people realize how efficient redundancy has become... It isn't a 1:1 as some foolishly think.

Not only that, I don't think they realize efficient redundancy has been around since the 80s. Reed-solomon error correction was figured out in the 60s.

[silverkamote]

I've been in Bitcoin early, I've been in Ethereum early. The first token I can actually say I'm passionate about because of the tangible use case is Sia. It's become an important part of my backup strategy, and as an investor I have an incentive to keep buying coins so my storage costs reduce down the line. What a fantastic product. Sure, let's go to the moon, but let's take time to appreciate what has been created here.

[CryptoManiacHen]

Hey guys.

Glad to see some of the hodlers remaining optimistic.

For the cynics, a healthy dose of skepticism is not a bad thing at all.  Just don't overdo it.  From an investor/speculator perspective, we're nowhere near the point of ringing the alarm, if that ever happens.

There will be some big news announced Friday. Obelisk was nothing compared to what will be announced.

This will be a big year for Sia.

[eagle10]

Hey guys.

Glad to see some of the hodlers remaining optimistic.

For the cynics, a healthy dose of skepticism is not a bad thing at all.  Just don't overdo it.  From an investor/speculator perspective, we're nowhere near the point of ringing the alarm, if that ever happens.

There will be some big news announced Friday. Obelisk was nothing compared to what will be announced.

This will be a big year for Sia.

And hoping SIA would continue climbing up.. that's what investors are looking up for SIA.

[MCBTC91]

Some accounts on this thread are used most exclusively to encourage other members to hold Sia. Simultaneously, the members who aren't shill accounts are talking about dumping the stock pending tomorrows news. This is troubling...

Here are the questions which people are positing and have yet gone unanswered:
-Is Sia worth $500M? If so, why.
-The accounts on this thread claiming to "HODL" Sia have posited a $.50c/Sia price. No one has yet explained why Sia should be worth $25B, while Dropbox is speculated to have an actual value of $4B+/- with some thinking it's $10B.
-- Some actual underlying math would be highly helpful in this thread: ex: here is a projection of the necessary storage for outgoing years in the Sia target market, if Sia captures x% market share then $x/sia is justified.

The "more" technical analysis of Sia in the previous 2 pages has been scathing.
>What is the valuation of the current Sia holdings, + the cost of replicating the technology? I would imagine an extremely nominal amount compared to the market cap.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the fundamentals?

[CryptoManiacHen]

Siacoin's current valuation stems from the number of tokens x price = network value (crypto version of market cap).  This is a far cry from the valuation model used for companies like Dropbox. Apples and oranges.  For now, devs are largely setting the valuation since they decide how many tokens to create for a particular project.  

The 50 cent future price is speculation from hedge fund guys I met in NYC the week of Consensus and Token Summit.  The reason they're so bullish is because of the fact that Sia is a protocol-layer project with a major use case that consists of many potentially disruptive applications.

In the Web 2.0 era, the lion's share of value was created on the application layer of the TCP/IP protocol.  This is why the founders of companies like Google, originally a search company, are billionaires while the creator of the world wide web protocol Google search was built upon - Tim Burners-Lee - is not even rich.

In blockchain, most of the value will come from innovation on the protocol layer.  This is why blockchain hedge fund Polychain Capital only backs projects that are innovating on that layer.  This is why they're getting behind something like 0x Project (decentralized exchange on the protocol layer -
not front end like Poloniex or Bittrex) and not something like Status (mobile browser and messaging platform built on top of Ethereum protocol).  Developers who build the infrastructure will reap the fruits of their labor.

Pro tip: Research any project that is supported by Polychain Capital and Union Square Ventures.  Get on those ICOs.  Look up Fred Wilson and find his blog.  Read the post he wrote about ICOs.

Listen to this podcast for more insight: http://a16z.com/2017/04/03/cryptocurrencies-protocols-appcoins/

Sia has a big future ahead of it.  A lot of the concerns being spouted are utterly petty and miss the big picture.  Don't think like the small man.  Educate yourself while it's still early.  Information is everywhere, but the desire to truly learn is scarce.

Go to events in this space. Whatever money you spend on getting to and from the event location and for event tickets will come back to you 20x or more in the form of the network you build. At the very least, find meetups in your area or create one yourself.  It's still early guys, so if you're truly passionate about this new technology, go all in.

[Anoxxxy]

Hey guys.

Glad to see some of the hodlers remaining optimistic.

For the cynics, a healthy dose of skepticism is not a bad thing at all.  Just don't overdo it.  From an investor/speculator perspective, we're nowhere near the point of ringing the alarm, if that ever happens.

There will be some big news announced Friday. Obelisk was nothing compared to what will be announced.

This will be a big year for Sia.

It's Friday today 23/6

[marketone]

http://

Hey guys.

Glad to see some of the hodlers remaining optimistic.

For the cynics, a healthy dose of skepticism is not a bad thing at all.  Just don't overdo it.  From an investor/speculator perspective, we're nowhere near the point of ringing the alarm, if that ever happens.

There will be some big news announced Friday. Obelisk was nothing compared to what will be announced.

This will be a big year for Sia.

It's Friday today 23/6

Yes, Still now we didn't find any news about Sia. Already today is Friday I don't see any big news about Sia, many people misleading the market and making the people into confusion. But in the market, Sia settles at 720 sats.