Decentralized file storage block chains are entirely flawed and only a completely clueless fool wouldn't realize it:
It adds no difficulty. Don't be disingenuous.
It is because after 10,000+ posts, an endless stream of idiots causes me to have to repeat the same technical points over and over and over and over and over and over...
The insults are intended to shame them into doing some reading before posting or investing. After 10,000+ posts, I think I deserve to express such frustration. If you don't, you are free to ignore me.
It doesn't matter. The issue I cited is insoluble. You will never find a technical solution. Ever.
Sybil attack as I had stated. I never mentioned deduplication.
Nope. I already explained why staking (analogously burning) doesn't provide sufficient security.
An illiquid coin is rather useless. If that is your goal, then you are stating it won't be widely adopted.
Edit: note that shorting isn't required to break the economic model for the security. The staked (deposited and risked) or burned coins can be offset by earnings and in fact must be, otherwise no one will be a storage provider.
Also I was the one who invented proof-of-storage in 2013. I abandoned it because the Sybil attack is insoluble. I am the inventor of the shit.
Whoops. This is why technological idiots shouldn't be investing in technology they don't understand.
You are investing in something which has an insoluble technical flaw and can't work:
Inoramus, don't you know that all these decentralized file storage systems (including Sia, Storj, Florincoin, etc) can't work because I explained that proof-of-storage (a.k.a. proof-of-retrievability) is nonsense because anyone can pretend to be running many nodes and keep it all stored on one node. Thus Sybil attacking the system and cheating its economics and data retention resiliency.
MaidSafe is a scam. Even the claimed anonymity is technical bullshit.
I am so tired of this forum and endless stream of new ignoramuses who join this forum. I am not paid to reteach all of you fools! I would never fix the problems by coding if I spent all my time teaching all of you.
So a single entity can pretend to be many nodes, and Sybil sign and fulfill many such contracts on the same data, yet the client pays for more backup copies but only gets the resiliency of one backup copy.
As well, that entity might just short the Sia coin and then disconnect all his nodes and destroy the coin.
This is a fucking mess. And I can't believe that idiots are investing in these decentralized storage shit coins. How stupid are these guys on these forums.
Same as for proof-of-stake deposits, this only has to be deposited once yet can be used to Sybil attack unbounded number of clients ongoing.
And shorting the coin can be more profitable than the deposit staked.
Reputation systems devolve to centralization winner-take-all paradigms due to the power vacuum created by the security hole (the potential to attack the coin and/or clients).
Also Side-chains are a flawed mess.
You are investing in something which has an insoluble technical flaw and can't work:
7. the largest file swapping service company is Florincoin (The Alexandria Project)
Inoramus, don't you know that all these decentralized file storage systems (including Sia, Storj, Florincoin, etc) can't work because I explained that proof-of-storage (a.k.a. proof-of-retrievability) is nonsense because anyone can pretend to be running many nodes and keep it all stored on one node. Thus Sybil attacking the system and cheating its economics and data retention resiliency.
MaidSafe is a scam. Even the claimed anonymity is technical bullshit.
I am so tired of this forum and endless stream of new ignoramuses who join this forum. I am not paid to reteach all of you fools! I would never fix the problems by coding if I spent all my time teaching all of you.
Quote from: http://www.sia.tech/sia.pdf#page=3
5 Proof of Storage
Storage proof transactions are periodically submitted
in order to ful ll le contracts. Each storage proof
targets a speci c le contract.
Storage proof transactions are periodically submitted
in order to ful ll le contracts. Each storage proof
targets a speci c le contract.
So a single entity can pretend to be many nodes, and Sybil sign and fulfill many such contracts on the same data, yet the client pays for more backup copies but only gets the resiliency of one backup copy.
As well, that entity might just short the Sia coin and then disconnect all his nodes and destroy the coin.
This is a fucking mess. And I can't believe that idiots are investing in these decentralized storage shit coins. How stupid are these guys on these forums.
Quote from: http://www.sia.tech/sia.pdf#page=5
7.4 Basic Reputation System
Clients need a reliable method for picking quality
hosts. Analyzing their history is insucient, because
the history could be spoofed. A host could repeat-
edly form contracts with itself, agreeing to store large
\fake" les, such as a le containing only zeros. It
would be trivial to perform storage proofs on such
data without actually storing anything.
To mitigate this Sybil attack, clients can require
that hosts that announce themselves in the arbitrary
data section also include a large volume of time locked
coins. If 10 coins are time locked 14 days into the
future, then the host can be said to have created a
lock valued at 140 coin-days. By favoring hosts that
have created high-value locks, clients can mitigate the
risk of Sybil attacks, as valuable locks are not trivial
to create.
Clients need a reliable method for picking quality
hosts. Analyzing their history is insucient, because
the history could be spoofed. A host could repeat-
edly form contracts with itself, agreeing to store large
\fake" les, such as a le containing only zeros. It
would be trivial to perform storage proofs on such
data without actually storing anything.
To mitigate this Sybil attack, clients can require
that hosts that announce themselves in the arbitrary
data section also include a large volume of time locked
coins. If 10 coins are time locked 14 days into the
future, then the host can be said to have created a
lock valued at 140 coin-days. By favoring hosts that
have created high-value locks, clients can mitigate the
risk of Sybil attacks, as valuable locks are not trivial
to create.
Same as for proof-of-stake deposits, this only has to be deposited once yet can be used to Sybil attack unbounded number of clients ongoing.
And shorting the coin can be more profitable than the deposit staked.
Reputation systems devolve to centralization winner-take-all paradigms due to the power vacuum created by the security hole (the potential to attack the coin and/or clients).
Quote from: http://www.sia.tech/sia.pdf
...later financially connected to Bitcoin via a two-way peg...
Also Side-chains are a flawed mess.
I do ask that you don't smear insults throughout your posts because it makes it difficult to see your technical arguments and distracts from your core points.
It adds no difficulty. Don't be disingenuous.
It is because after 10,000+ posts, an endless stream of idiots causes me to have to repeat the same technical points over and over and over and over and over and over...
The insults are intended to shame them into doing some reading before posting or investing. After 10,000+ posts, I think I deserve to express such frustration. If you don't, you are free to ignore me.
The second problem is that you are citing some pretty old information about how Sia works, and you are missing some important details that help bring the system together and secure it.
It doesn't matter. The issue I cited is insoluble. You will never find a technical solution. Ever.
The first technical argument you make is that "anyone can pretend to be running many nodes and keep it all stored on one node". I'm not sure if you are talking about a deduplication attack here, or just a standard Sybil attack.
Sybil attack as I had stated. I never mentioned deduplication.
The Sybil attack is, in my qualified opinion, the weakest part of the Sia protocol. But we do have sufficient defense against it, and that comes in the form of proof-of-burn.
Nope. I already explained why staking (analogously burning) doesn't provide sufficient security.
Also you talk about shorting a coin and then using the money raised from shorting it to attack it. You would need to buy the short from somewhere, and you'd need enough money to both buy the shorts and then have enough to do the proof-of-burn. I'm doubting that someone would let you short a massive volume of some asset, if you are shorting that much they would probably get suspicious.
An illiquid coin is rather useless. If that is your goal, then you are stating it won't be widely adopted.
Edit: note that shorting isn't required to break the economic model for the security. The staked (deposited and risked) or burned coins can be offset by earnings and in fact must be, otherwise no one will be a storage provider.
Also I was the one who invented proof-of-storage in 2013. I abandoned it because the Sybil attack is insoluble. I am the inventor of the shit.