If the users paid, the blockchain doesnt have to issue the coin for its security, or the coin price doesnt impact to its security.
Sure, so that's exactly like Filecoin. If storage secures your blockchain why do you even want to keep PoW as well?
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.