A useful PoW without replacing Nakamoto Consensus

[kernel1983]

What does this have to do with miners' steadier income?

In this system: blockchain, miners and users
Users can send transactions and request to store their data on the blockchain.
Miners can mine (produce block) and serve user content storage requests.

The chance to find new block under solo mining is very little, like a lucky draw.
However, if the miners are keeping the content for the users, they will receive the payment for storage resource every week.

[1713938085]

1713938085

[1713938085]

1713938085

[1713938085]

1713938085

[BlackHatCoiner]

Miners can mine (produce block) and serve user content storage requests.

That's the nodes' job. Running a full node serves the network in two essential ways: It helps it bandwidth-wise, and it insures the presence of the chain in more places. Miners can right as well run a full node, providing extra storage, but their job is to provide computational power.

However, if the miners are keeping the content for the users, they will receive the payment for storage resource every week.

I think you've confused the purpose of running a full node yourself, and avoid trusting a third party for doing it for you. There's already an incentive on running a full node, that is privacy and security. There's no need to essentially tax the users who don't want to run a full node, which is what you do if you reward those who do run one.

[kernel1983]

Miners can mine (produce block) and serve user content storage requests.

That's the nodes' job. Running a full node serves the network in two essential ways: It helps it bandwidth-wise, and it insures the presence of the chain in more places. Miners can right as well run a full node, providing extra storage, but their job is to provide computational power.

The Bitcoin full node is hosting the blockchain data (transactions data).
In the EcoPoW design, the miner contributes the computation for PoW consensus, and some disk space for USER's files storage.
Remember it is a blockchain with file storage, something like Filecoin.

However, if the miners are keeping the content for the users, they will receive the payment for storage resource every week.

I think you've confused the purpose of running a full node yourself, and avoid trusting a third party for doing it for you. There's already an incentive on running a full node, that is privacy and security. There's no need to essentially tax the users who don't want to run a full node, which is what you do if you reward those who do run one.

I'm not talking about the full node or even Bitcoin. Dont limit your imagination.
I believe the future blockchain needs sharding (maybe not ETH sharding).
And we're not taxing the user. It is the real the storage demand.

[BlackHatCoiner]

In the EcoPoW design, the miner contributes the computation for PoW consensus, and some disk space for USER's files storage.

So, do the files get saved in a separate chain, ideally a sidechain, wherein all hosters earn coins to incentivize them continue hosting? What's the difference with filecoin?

And we're not taxing the user. It is the real the storage demand.

Okay, I thought that since the miner gets paid to use his storage, he earns an extra bitcoin, which would make it a tax. But, we're talking about a sidechain / altcoin reward here as far as I understand.

[kernel1983]

In the EcoPoW design, the miner contributes the computation for PoW consensus, and some disk space for USER's files storage.

So, do the files get saved in a separate chain, ideally a sidechain, wherein all hosters earn coins to incentivize them continue hosting? What's the difference with filecoin?

We can see the EcoPoW from two angles.

From the blockchain storage angle:
EcoPoW idea comes from my study of Filecoin.
Filecoin uses Proof of Replication framework, but their encoding algorithm is SDR plus the more expensive zk based verify algorithm, make the storage very very expensive.
On the other hand, the Expect Consensus (EC) is actually a kind of PoS. https://spec.filecoin.io/algorithms/expected_consensus/

EcoPoW intends to use PoW as the encoding algorithm, meanwhile the blockchain is PoW protected as well.

From the PoW blockchain angle:
In an ideal case, the blockchain doesn't need to issue coins to reward the miners like Bitcoin.
It is like a free protection to the PoW blockchain network.
The amount of computation spent on consensus is no longer limited by the Bitcoin price.

The real storage demand will power the consensus/block generation.
The more data stored on the blockchain storage system will be turned into the chain security.
(Maybe we still need the concept of token, such as ERC20 to create something like USDT, so that users can pay the miners)

Thus, we can have a more cheap and decenterizaled blockchain storage powered by PoW.
People can mine the blockchain at home with common devices.
And there is no mining pool.

And we're not taxing the user. It is the real the storage demand.

Okay, I thought that since the miner gets paid to use his storage, he earns an extra bitcoin, which would make it a tax. But, we're talking about a sidechain / altcoin reward here as far as I understand.

Sure, since we're upgrading PoW, it is nice to build something without limitation.
Maybe years later we can discuss about how to apply this back to Bitcoin, or just leave it there.

For a normal user, they may prefer to purchase the storage with stable coin such as USDT or DAI, which is also different from Filecoin.

[NotATether]

I see a use-case here in backing up data.

The data can be archived and then compressed using .tar.xz, .7z, or something like that, and then split into smaller chunks, which can each be uploaded to some server individually which then embeds them into a large central storage rack (or data center(s)).

Everyone will always need to back up data periodically, and according to what you said, more storage = more security, so this is a perfect arrangement - users get their data backed up, and the chain becomes secure against 51% attackers (and ransomware).

In case a user wants to encrypt the data so that it's only visible to themselves, their client can simply derive an AES key from a password, similar to how Bitcoin Core does it, and use that to encrypt/decrypt each of the chunks. Losing the key is not a problem because as long as you still have access to the data, you can just make a new backup copy.

People will no longer have to pay for expensive stacks of disks or backup schemes, since the blockchains are immutable by design, and always accessible.

Web3 in action.

[BlackHatCoiner]

EcoPoW intends to use PoW as the encoding algorithm, meanwhile the blockchain is PoW protected as well.

This particular sentence doesn't make sense to me. What's encoding with Proof-of-Work? Did you perhaps mean timestamp-based algorithm?

It is like a free protection to the PoW blockchain network.

How is it free? Miners will have to increase their expenses with extra hardware. I'm still not sure how Proof-of-Work helps the "decentralized-storage-network" situation.

People can mine the blockchain at home with common devices.

Why would ordinary people (I presume, the storage users?) pay for mining?

For a normal user, they may prefer to purchase the storage with stable coin such as USDT or DAI, which is also different from Filecoin.

This abruptly centralizes the project. Stable coins are not decentralized.


What's the problem with purchasing hard drives? Safe, private, efficient, cheap.

[kernel1983]

I see a use-case here in backing up data.

The data can be archived and then compressed using .tar.xz, .7z, or something like that, and then split into smaller chunks, which can each be uploaded to some server individually which then embeds them into a large central storage rack (or data center(s)).

Everyone will always need to back up data periodically, and according to what you said, more storage = more security, so this is a perfect arrangement - users get their data backed up, and the chain becomes secure against 51% attackers (and ransomware).

In case a user wants to encrypt the data so that it's only visible to themselves, their client can simply derive an AES key from a password, similar to how Bitcoin Core does it, and use that to encrypt/decrypt each of the chunks. Losing the key is not a problem because as long as you still have access to the data, you can just make a new backup copy.

People will no longer have to pay for expensive stacks of disks or backup schemes, since the blockchains are immutable by design, and always accessible.

Web3 in action.

I want to press the 'Like' button. Ok anyway, you get my point.

You're trying to show the free storage but miners are still rewarded with Bitcoin. I'm not sure, but maybe it works.
I'm trying to show the free chain security but paid storage.
It is open to discuss. Both can use EcoPoW.

[kernel1983]

EcoPoW intends to use PoW as the encoding algorithm, meanwhile the blockchain is PoW protected as well.

This particular sentence doesn't make sense to me. What's encoding with Proof-of-Work? Did you perhaps mean timestamp-based algorithm?

This is explained at the beginning of the thread.
However, I made a PPT to explain how https://docsend.com/view/2n3cjscwf7c2mb29

It is like a free protection to the PoW blockchain network.

How is it free? Miners will have to increase their expenses with extra hardware. I'm still not sure how Proof-of-Work helps the "decentralized-storage-network" situation.

Since the miners are already paid with the file storage, the blockchain will not need to issue/mint new coins to pay the miners.
"free" is to blockchain, because the blockchain used to mint coins to gain security.
Miners needs to get hardware, but they have been paid.

People can mine the blockchain at home with common devices.

Why would ordinary people (I presume, the storage users?) pay for mining?

The storage users pay for the storage, and they need to get the proof that their files are honestly stored.
To generate that proof, miners are using encoding.
The encoding algorithm output two things within same computation: 1. the encoded content (replication) 2. PoW blockchain consensus (new block)

So, yes, magicly storage users paid for the mining.

For a normal user, they may prefer to purchase the storage with stable coin such as USDT or DAI, which is also different from Filecoin.

This abruptly centralizes the project. Stable coins are not decentralized.

Yes, maybe USDT is centralized, but DAI (or other algorithm stable coin) can be decentralized.

I'm happy to explain all this.
I do care for the decentralization and PoW.

[BlackHatCoiner]

However, I made a PPT to explain how https://docsend.com/view/2n3cjscwf7c2mb29

It requires a personal email; it doesn't accept temporary email addresses apparently. Is it private / academic work? If it isn't sensitive, upload it elsewhere.

Since the miners are already paid with the file storage, the blockchain will not need to issue/mint new coins to pay the miners.

There are two ways you can reward a miner; tax the users directly, or tax the users indirectly. 
You have to either mint new coins, or collect some miner tax from users. As far as I understand, miners' income comes from file uploaders.

The storage users pay for the storage, and they need to get the proof that their files are honestly stored.

Oh. So, the difference with a cloud service and a filecoin-like blockchain is that the latter provides proof of the storage?

The encoding algorithm output two things within same computation: 1. the encoded content (replication) 2. PoW blockchain consensus (new block)

The file content will have to either be included into a block, or included into miner's local disk. Isn't that correct? Since the former can't scale, how do you ensure the miner will keep it in his personal storage, or just that he'll not go offline right after you pay him?

[tromp]

However, I made a PPT to explain how https://docsend.com/view/2n3cjscwf7c2mb29

That fails to explain how you get more than 1 (or a few) bytes of storage per PoW, i.e. per block.

[kernel1983]

However, I made a PPT to explain how https://docsend.com/view/2n3cjscwf7c2mb29

That fails to explain how you get more than 1 (or a few) bytes of storage per PoW, i.e. per block.

Yes, it explains the basic concept.
Any programmer can extend this algorithm:
1. When the current byte finished encoding, continue to encode the next byte.
2. When a new block was found and broadcasted, mine/encode based on the latest block.
3. Adjust the encoding difficulty, you can choose 1 byte or 2 bytes to encode, or any bits less than the hash output bits width. (for sha256, 256bits max. however, you wont choose too difficult setting.)

However, I made a PPT to explain how https://docsend.com/view/2n3cjscwf7c2mb29

It requires a personal email; it doesn't accept temporary email addresses apparently. Is it private / academic work? If it isn't sensitive, upload it elsewhere.

Any gmail works! You can use my gmail to watch it.
Sure, I'm working on the PhD research but I'm self-funded for several years.
The emails were collected for potential funding to build a blockchain.
We can only prove this idea working by actually building it.

Since the miners are already paid with the file storage, the blockchain will not need to issue/mint new coins to pay the miners.

There are two ways you can reward a miner; tax the users directly, or tax the users indirectly.  
You have to either mint new coins, or collect some miner tax from users. As far as I understand, miners' income comes from file uploaders.

Yes, just like cloud computing, it is not free.
The transactions on Bitcoin is not free as well.

The storage users pay for the storage, and they need to get the proof that their files are honestly stored.

Oh. So, the difference with a cloud service and a filecoin-like blockchain is that the latter provides proof of the storage?

Yes, for cloud service, usually hosted by big names nowaday. They can use the best hardware and reduce the redundancy to 2 copies but providing 99.999999... service available under their control.
In the blockchain, anyone are free to join or leave. Then we need Proof of Replication/storage in such a permission-less network.
Again, PoW is to blockchain security and PoRep is to file storage security.

The encoding algorithm output two things within same computation: 1. the encoded content (replication) 2. PoW blockchain consensus (new block)

The file content will have to either be included into a block, or included into miner's local disk. Isn't that correct? Since the former can't scale, how do you ensure the miner will keep it in his personal storage, or just that he'll not go offline right after you pay him?

The file content/replication are never going to a block. User content only needs several replications but the chain blocks are copied by the full nodes worldwide.
And yes, the PoRep is used to ensure the miner stay online and they need to generate the proof from replication periodically.
Honestly we can only proof the users data are still existing, but it is hard to prove the storage service provider have enough bandwidth for user to get files back. It may require the users to test downloading and the system can build reputation with good service providers. That requires further study.

[n0nce]

In an ideal case, the blockchain doesn't need to issue coins to reward the miners like Bitcoin.
It is like a free protection to the PoW blockchain network.

Nothing is free; there's always a cost involved.

The amount of computation spent on consensus is no longer limited by the Bitcoin price.

It is; nobody will buy tons of storage drives altruistically. They will want a reward. And since mining / staking / ... rewards are paid in cryptocurrency, meanwhile hardware is priced in fiat, the exchange rate always has an impact.

The real storage demand will power the consensus/block generation. ^{[emphasis mine]}
The more data stored on the blockchain storage system will be turned into the chain security.
(Maybe we still need the concept of token, such as ERC20 to create something like USDT, so that users can pay the miners)

Thus, we can have a more cheap and decenterizaled blockchain storage powered by PoW.
People can mine the blockchain at home with common devices.
And there is no mining pool.

You say consensus is powered by storage (like pure Filecoin), yet still want PoW somehow mixed in. And how does adding file storage in parallel to a PoW (mining) blockchain suddenly allow people to mine again at home, without pools? Do you mean that people can do the 'hosting' part at home meanwhile ASIC farms still exist?

In general, I don't think a blockchain is the right data structure for decentralized file hosting. The reason is that blockchain doesn't scale. If everyone were to upload a mere 1GB, the blockchain would reach a size of 7 Exabytes, which would require you to buy almost 400 thousand (!) of the latest IronWolf 18TB drives. That runs you roughly 160 million USD. I don't think anyone would run such a node.

In practice, it means that storage space on the (any!) blockchain is extremely expensive due to the very fact that every single node will hold a copy of it. For anything except the most valuable information, it is cheaper, easier and overall better to use a different solution to store your data.

For decentralized file storage, you can generally just stick to Torrents.

For a normal user, they may prefer to purchase the storage with stable coin such as USDT or DAI, which is also different from Filecoin.

Have you modeled how expensive or how centralized this blockchain you envision, is going to be? There will be a linear correlation between nodes and storage price. And the price would need to be recurring & increase with increasing number of nodes; as well as somehow include a mechanism to account for storage getting cheaper.

Yes, just like cloud computing, it is not free.
The transactions on Bitcoin is not free as well.

Except that Bitcoin transactions are tiny, the user base is pretty small and the blockchain is still at already around 500GB. You will be able to store tiny text snippets at most, if you seek to get Bitcoin-like decentralization.

The emails were collected for potential funding to build a blockchain.
We can only prove this idea working by actually building it.

Firstly, maybe consider forking Filecoin and adding whatever changes you like; could be simpler and cheaper than writing it from scratch.
Secondly, before building it, I'd actually try modeling it, running some simple numbers and calculations to make sure it's actually viable.

[kernel1983]

In an ideal case, the blockchain doesn't need to issue coins to reward the miners like Bitcoin.
It is like a free protection to the PoW blockchain network.

Nothing is free; there's always a cost involved.

The core idea of EcoPoW is get the PoW output two things rather than just than the consensus.
If the users paid, the blockchain doesnt have to issue the coin for its security, or the coin price doesnt impact to its security.

The amount of computation spent on consensus is no longer limited by the Bitcoin price.

It is; nobody will buy tons of storage drives altruistically. They will want a reward. And since mining / staking / ... rewards are paid in cryptocurrency, meanwhile hardware is priced in fiat, the exchange rate always has an impact.

No one will buy tons of storage.
But it is nice to have many miners each to buy a 8T (cheap) hard drive, and many users each purchase several gigabytes of space.
And, yes, I suggestted the storage price are counted in USDT or DAI or another algorithm stable coin in fiat.
That is another topic.

The real storage demand will power the consensus/block generation. ^{[emphasis mine]}
The more data stored on the blockchain storage system will be turned into the chain security.
(Maybe we still need the concept of token, such as ERC20 to create something like USDT, so that users can pay the miners)

Thus, we can have a more cheap and decenterizaled blockchain storage powered by PoW.
People can mine the blockchain at home with common devices.
And there is no mining pool.

You say consensus is powered by storage (like pure Filecoin), yet still want PoW somehow mixed in.

Filecoin spends most the computation on PoRep and ZK. And for the consensus, EC is actually a PoS (which doesnt cost much computing).
I believed PoW can bring the true decenterization.

The next question is very important

And how does adding file storage in parallel to a PoW (mining) blockchain suddenly allow people to mine again at home, without pools? Do you mean that people can do the 'hosting' part at home meanwhile ASIC farms still exist?

Let's forget about ASIC first. Everyone have CPU or GPU at home.
It is important to understand miners contributing computation for the reward. And nowaday, the mining pool is the only choice to get incoming.
If the computation are useful for miners to get more incoming, they will consumed the computation locally, which behaved like solo mining.
We can see the mining is a side output during file encoding.
This is how mining pools are gone naturely.

Next question,

In general, I don't think a blockchain is the right data structure for decentralized file hosting. The reason is that blockchain doesn't scale. If everyone were to upload a mere 1GB, the blockchain would reach a size of 7 Exabytes, which would require you to buy almost 400 thousand (!) of the latest IronWolf 18TB drives. That runs you roughly 160 million USD. I don't think anyone would run such a node.

I dont think scale-up is a big issue.
Maybe 7 TPS is not enough, but what if 2000-5000 TPS? It is the time to build some application.
However, I still hope the scale-up technology doesnt break the decenterization.
As we know, most of new chains are increasing TPS by decreasing the decenterization. But we must stick with the existing decenterization.

In practice, it means that storage space on the (any!) blockchain is extremely expensive due to the very fact that every single node will hold a copy of it. For anything except the most valuable information, it is cheaper, easier and overall better to use a different solution to store your data.

Users files are not into the chain blocks. Most of blockchain storage doesn't do this except AR and its Proof of Access.

For decentralized file storage, you can generally just stick to Torrents.

Yes, we already have IPFS which is similar to BitTorrent.
Nothing is free, we need a blockchain solution. Filecoin is good direction but too expensive.

For a normal user, they may prefer to purchase the storage with stable coin such as USDT or DAI, which is also different from Filecoin.

Have you modeled how expensive or how centralized this blockchain you envision, is going to be? There will be a linear correlation between nodes and storage price. And the price would need to be recurring & increase with increasing number of nodes; as well as somehow include a mechanism to account for storage getting cheaper.

Let's say we already have PC at home. We dont purchase extra bandwidth and space like in the data center. And we dont hire expensive engineers.
The only additional cost is the extra hard drives.
Maybe Chia miners would love to join this.
The miners will figure out how to get revenue higher and how to make the price lower.

Yes, just like cloud computing, it is not free.
The transactions on Bitcoin is not free as well.

Except that Bitcoin transactions are tiny, the user base is pretty small and the blockchain is still at already around 500GB. You will be able to store tiny text snippets at most, if you seek to get Bitcoin-like decentralization.

Again, the users files are not into the chain blocks.
Hoever, we definely need a high TPS and sharding blockchain.

The emails were collected for potential funding to build a blockchain.
We can only prove this idea working by actually building it.

Firstly, maybe consider forking Filecoin and adding whatever changes you like; could be simpler and cheaper than writing it from scratch.
Secondly, before building it, I'd actually try modeling it, running some simple numbers and calculations to make sure it's actually viable.

I wont fork a PoS chain. It takes longer to build, because we have to remove all the code first. Did you see Filecoin or ETH fork Bitcoin?
I already have a sharding blockchain.

The price model is adjustable, and sometimes requires the feedback from the community, but the blockchain code structure is hard to change.

[tromp]

Yes, it explains the basic concept.
Any programmer can extend this algorithm:
1. When the current byte finished encoding, continue to encode the next byte.

I don't understand what that means. Can you explain how exactly you propose to change the consensus rules?
Why would a miner spend 256 more effort to get the last 8 bits "correct", when they can instead just focus on the initial zeros, and once satisfying those, pretend that whatever the final 8 bits encode is what needed to be stored?

2. When a new block was found and broadcasted, mine/encode based on the latest block.
3. Adjust the encoding difficulty, you can choose 1 byte or 2 bytes to encode, or any bits less than the hash output bits width. (for sha256, 256bits max. however, you wont choose too difficult setting.)

Even at minimal encoding difficulty, you can store at most 32 bytes per block.

[BlackHatCoiner]

In general, I don't think a blockchain is the right data structure for decentralized file hosting.

Me neither, that's why I think this proposal, filecoin included, is fundamentally flawed. If I want to share a file, I'm the one who first of all have to take personal responsibility of the file, and second, pay the required cost. There's no reason a hundred miners keep my file when I only need one to store it. That's the definition of inefficiency. If I want true decentralization of my file storage, then I should run a BitTorrent client, and seed my stuff there. If I don't care about that (which I honestly don't), I can stick with a centralized solution, such as Mega Upload. Privacy can be assured with encryption.

And that's before I even comprehend (2 pages now) how Proof-of-Work can help the situation in decentralized file sharing / storage. It's just flawed, no need to. Blockchains solve the double-spending problem, and that's all they do.

[n0nce]

But it is nice to have many miners each to buy a 8T (cheap) hard drive, and many users each purchase several gigabytes of space.

Miners aren't the only ones keeping a copy of the blockchain, though. Every single node will need to buy 8TB (or however much) storage for the blockchain to remain decentralized.
There are even miners without own full node; not sure why you conflate those groups.

Filecoin spends most the computation on PoRep and ZK. And for the consensus, EC is actually a PoS (which doesnt cost much computing).
I believed PoW can bring the true decenterization.

Exactly; only PoW can give you true decentralization. By adding paid file storage, you add in all the problems of Filecoin & keep the high power consumption of SHA256 mining as well.

It is important to understand miners contributing computation for the reward. And nowaday, the mining pool is the only choice to get incoming.
If the computation are useful for miners to get more incoming, they will consumed the computation locally, which behaved like solo mining.
We can see the mining is a side output during file encoding.

Oh, so there will be no actual SHA256 mining anymore; when you say mining you actually mean file encoding? You should have said that earlier. Well, Filecoin also requires file encoding right. So filecoin is also a 'PoW' mechanism in your eyes, because the nodes need to do some computation?

This is how mining pools are gone naturely.

Do note that mining pools aren't such a big issue as some papers or articles may make it out to be. If you got more questions about this, feel free to ask or browse the forum.

But we must stick with the existing decenterization.

I don't understand what you wrote in the last paragraph, but I suggest you use the right spelling (decentralization); if you always write it like this, you may get less / worse search results when browsing the web.

Nothing is free, we need a blockchain solution. Filecoin is good direction but too expensive.

How do you aim to make it less expensive? What is the big difference maker here?

The miners will figure out how to get revenue higher and how to make the price lower.

What do you mean by 'miners'? Just file hosting nodes that decode / encode data or actual ASIC (or other algorihm based) miners? By the way; ASIC is probably the way to go here, especially in this application since you want your CPU to be fully available for file delivery and delegate any other computation to a separate ASIC chip.

Again, the users files are not into the chain blocks.

Oh wait, so you are proposing a regular PoW blockchain, with regular repeated hashing for mining and minting new coins, just like Bitcoin, but nodes can choose to host some files (depending on their capacity) and get a reward for it? What if they delete them again? Is it a recurring payment? There will be no guarantee of file availability right?

This sounds like just adding Bittorrent into Bitcoin Core (or similar); I don't think it makes sense to mash different softwares with different purposes together like that. Just add a reward system to Torrents and that's it. There is no reason to claim it somehow makes PoW more useful or anything like that. This is much easier implemented as a Bittorrent add-on instead of building a whole new blockchain.

[kernel1983]

Code:

import hashlib

BYTES_TO_ENCODE = b'\x01\x05\xff\xcc'
PREVIOUS_BLOCK_HASH = b'\x00' * 64
TXS = b'RANDOM TRANSACTIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NEXT BLOCK'

difficulty = 10
nonce = 0
encode_offset = 0

while True:
    nonce += 1
    if nonce % 1000000 == 0:
        print(nonce, encode_offset)
    hash = hashlib.sha256(PREVIOUS_BLOCK_HASH+TXS+str(nonce).encode()).hexdigest()
    if hash.startswith('0' * difficulty):
        break

    if hash.endswith('%02x' % BYTES_TO_ENCODE[encode_offset]):
        print('hex %02x nonce' % BYTES_TO_ENCODE[encode_offset], nonce)
        encode_offset += 1
        if encode_offset >= len(BYTES_TO_ENCODE):
            break

The nonce are the enocded value. I'm using python 3.8

We did not change the rule of consensus, the block difficulty is the start of the hash. (left bytes)
But just adding a check for the end of the hash to see if it is equal to the byte we want to encode. (right bytes)

In general, I don't think a blockchain is the right data structure for decentralized file hosting.

Me neither, that's why I think this proposal, filecoin included, is fundamentally flawed. If I want to share a file, I'm the one who first of all have to take personal responsibility of the file, and second, pay the required cost. There's no reason a hundred miners keep my file when I only need one to store it. That's the definition of inefficiency. If I want true decentralization of my file storage, then I should run a BitTorrent client, and seed my stuff there. If I don't care about that (which I honestly don't), I can stick with a centralized solution, such as Mega Upload. Privacy can be assured with encryption.

And that's before I even comprehend (2 pages now) how Proof-of-Work can help the situation in decentralized file sharing / storage. It's just flawed, no need to. Blockchains solve the double-spending problem, and that's all they do.

Maybe it is true.
However, if I did not step into the detail of Filecoin, I will never realize that PoW can be upgraded. (Now lots of people turns to PoS, what a pity!)

Compare to other blockchain storage project, I will say EcoPoW based blockchain is totally different.
It is not just a blockchain storage, this is the key to build a more decenterization blockchain!

I can foresee the storage feature become the source of PoW computation, since we all know that coin price will not go up forever.

[kernel1983]

But it is nice to have many miners each to buy a 8T (cheap) hard drive, and many users each purchase several gigabytes of space.

Miners aren't the only ones keeping a copy of the blockchain, though. Every single node will need to buy 8TB (or however much) storage for the blockchain to remain decentralized.
There are even miners without own full node; not sure why you conflate those groups.

No, only the miners need extra hard drive, the node doesn't need to.
Again, the users file doesnt go into the chain.

Filecoin spends most the computation on PoRep and ZK. And for the consensus, EC is actually a PoS (which doesnt cost much computing).
I believed PoW can bring the true decenterization.

Exactly; only PoW can give you true decentralization. By adding paid file storage, you add in all the problems of Filecoin & keep the high power consumption of SHA256 mining as well.

I believe I was fix Filecoin's problem with EcoPoW.
Again, I'm not selling this to Bitcoin, there is no hard fork. We build a new chain but PoW based.

It is important to understand miners contributing computation for the reward. And nowaday, the mining pool is the only choice to get incoming.
If the computation are useful for miners to get more incoming, they will consumed the computation locally, which behaved like solo mining.
We can see the mining is a side output during file encoding.

Oh, so there will be no actual SHA256 mining anymore; when you say mining you actually mean file encoding? You should have said that earlier. Well, Filecoin also requires file encoding right. So filecoin is also a 'PoW' mechanism in your eyes, because the nodes need to do some computation?

Filecoin is PoS (EC), check out my previous post.
There is SHA256 mining and encoding. They are combined in the EcoPoW.
The PoW used to output mining, EcoPoW outputs mining and encoding with the almost same computation (we added another 'if' check).

This is how mining pools are gone naturely.

Do note that mining pools aren't such a big issue as some papers or articles may make it out to be. If you got more questions about this, feel free to ask or browse the forum.

Yes, mining pools is not big a issue as Bitcoin is still the most decentralized blockchain so far.
However, a PoW blockchain without mining pool will be more decentralized, right?

But we must stick with the existing decenterization.

I don't understand what you wrote in the last paragraph, but I suggest you use the right spelling (decentralization); if you always write it like this, you may get less / worse search results when browsing the web.

Yes, I will turn on the grammarly
I feel I have repeated many times on lots of the same questions, forgive me for the typos.

Nothing is free, we need a blockchain solution. Filecoin is good direction but too expensive.

How do you aim to make it less expensive? What is the big difference maker here?

OK, I have explained above.
Filecoin uses expensive server, and it is too noisy. The servers must be place in the data center.
Home PC is cheaper, and the bandwidth are free.
Compare to could computing, there are no expensive engineers.
And, the ZK, we remove it, we have the better way do this.

The miners will figure out how to get revenue higher and how to make the price lower.

What do you mean by 'miners'? Just file hosting nodes that decode / encode data or actual ASIC (or other algorihm based) miners? By the way; ASIC is probably the way to go here, especially in this application since you want your CPU to be fully available for file delivery and delegate any other computation to a separate ASIC chip.

PC
ASIC can speed up the encoding, GPU as well. Outsourcing is possible.

Again, the users files are not into the chain blocks.

Oh wait, so you are proposing a regular PoW blockchain, with regular repeated hashing for mining and minting new coins, just like Bitcoin, but nodes can choose to host some files (depending on their capacity) and get a reward for it? What if they delete them again? Is it a recurring payment? There will be no guarantee of file availability right?

Nodes doesnt host files, the miners do.
PoRep is designed for guarantee of file availability.
EcoPoW is both a PoW and a PoRep.

This sounds like just adding Bittorrent into Bitcoin Core (or similar); I don't think it makes sense to mash different softwares with different purposes together like that. Just add a reward system to Torrents and that's it. There is no reason to claim it somehow makes PoW more useful or anything like that. This is much easier implemented as a Bittorrent add-on instead of building a whole new blockchain.
A blockchain storage project like Filecoin, but PoW based and other improvements.
BitTorrent and IPFS has no PoRep.

The more unique is that it provides the PoW blockchain free security. That is the key point!
The reason to claim EcoPoW more useful is two usage is larger than one usage. And we did not even alter the PoW, but just adding a 'if' check.

[BlackHatCoiner]

The nonce are the enocded value.

A block can have some extra metadata. You don't have to mess with nonce if you want to include an encoded value. I still don't understand why you'd want to do this, though.

However, if I did not step into the detail of Filecoin, I will never realize that PoW can be upgraded.

Seriously, do you call this whole thing an upgrade? It's unnecessary and inefficient.

Compare to other blockchain storage project, I will say EcoPoW based blockchain is totally different.

I don't question your part, in comparison with other such blockchains. I question the entire "decentralization of storage" as a concept.

It is not just a blockchain storage, this is the key to build a more decenterization blockchain!

I strongly disagree. A more decentralized blockchain puts scaling above all.