[tribler]

The interesting bit: "Legal Compliance for Filecoin Storage Miners" https://github.com/filecoin-project/specs/issues/65

"In order to comply the with law, a miner who agreed to store the bad data must not serve it, and delete the data from its hard drive as soon as possible."

[emagdnim2100]

@ianjdarrow from the linked thread here. To clarify a little – the idea isn’t that Filecoin would ever tell anyone they have to remove data of any type. Filecoin is open-source software that tons of storage miners will use across diverse legal and moral systems, and it’s important that those miners can make decisions about how what they store and to whom they serve it.

Of course, you have to do this using incentives to avoid breaking the protocol. This is actually one of the reasons it makes sense for storage and retrieval markets to be separate. If you’re being paid a fee to serve a file you have, you should rationally want to serve it unless there’s a compelling reason not to.

[tribler]

Wow, you have some really tough business decisions with this architecture:

- Is the mentioned blacklist implemented?

- Will it be enabled by default?

- Will the legal entity responsible for the blacklist be US-based?

[ijpoijpoihpiuoh]

From your link.

Storage miners can absolutely decline retrieval requests, at any time, for any reason.

Storage miners have to be able to access the data themselves for the purposes of the PoSt, but since the PoSt is a zero knowledge proof, none of that data ever leaves the miner. The PoSt simply proves to everyone else that they actually have the data, without revealing the data (thats how we keep it compact).

I found this interesting too. Could a miner save on bandwidth costs by just hoarding a bunch of data, but never serving it up? I guess that they must have a solution for that, but is the solution decentralized?

[tribler]

Yes, that seems a possible attack. You can store stuff and pass the regular audits using "Proof-Of-Storage", yet refuse to upload bits when finally asked.

Hard to protect systems from irrational attacks like that (we know from building a similar system). They are quite transparant about their "unsolved-problems": https://github.com/filecoin-project/specs/issues/63

[dlubarov]

Why do you call that behavior irrational? Seems like it would save some bandwidth costs, as the parent suggests.

[wmf]

AFAIK nodes get paid for serving data and they can set the price to be higher than their bandwidth costs, so refusing to serve data is refusing to make money.

[beambot]

If you are the only surviving node with the data, then it's called extortion or holding the data hostage.

[wmf]

Preventing that kind of problem is basically the point of Filecoin and similar systems.

[rickycook]

see my reply to the parent; there’s a retrieval market too, which could help that issue

[rickycook]

from what i understand, you get a reward for serving the data, so you miss out on a good portion of bounty. you probably COULD attack the data like that, but it would cost you which might stop large scale attacks

*EDIT: and not just for serving it, but for serving it quickly.

from their site:

> Are you in the middle of a dense city? Do you have access to very fast Internet pipes? Have a rack in a carrier hotel? Perfect! In Filecoin's Retrieval Market, miners get rewarded for delivering content quickly. This makes the retrieval market good for miners who have low-latency, high-bandwidth connections to lots of users (but not necessarily the most disk space).

[woah]

> Could a miner save on bandwidth costs by just hoarding a bunch of data, but never serving it up? I guess that they must have a solution for that, but is the solution decentralized?

I've always suspected this will be the case with Filecoin. Whether or not it is profitable depends on the ratio between storage and bandwidth costs. If you can store stuff cheaply but your bandwidth is expensive, then it make sense to store junk data if your hard drives are not full.

Filecoin really has two incentive mechanisms: A proof-of-storage-hardware mining scheme similar to proof of work which does not preclude storing useful data, along with a retrieval market which should make storing useful data more profitable than not in most cases.

[chvid]

Maybe we need a bandwidth coin as well ...

[marknadal]

Martti Malmi (and I) are working on that:

https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-second-developer-returning...

Our testnet has already pushed ~1TB of data in a day on a P2P network that cost ~$99 to operate. (Internet Archive, D.Tube, Notabug.io, and others run us in production).

I'm hoping bandwidth + Filecoin will be the perfect combo for devs to replace AWS/Azure/gCloud/S3/etc. for about ~85% cheaper than current centralized rates. (As calculated by our 300GB / 100M 1kb per record test here, a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_WqBuEA7s8 ).

Now we just need a kickawesome CPU/GPU coin that isn't slow/bottlenecked. Anybody know one that could unify with IPFS + GUN?

[woah]

I’m curious what exactly you are talking about. It sounds like you were getting an 11 megabit connection for $99? What is the product?

[xwvvvvwx]

IIRC each proof also contains a little bit of the data, so over time the original data is transmitted.

[thebzax]

that sounds like the exact opposite of a zero-knowledge proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof