|
|
|
|
|
|
by gnode
2525 days ago
|
|
|
The comparison wasn't complete, but I think it was still meaningful. It's like comparing the cost of sand to glass; it should be obvious that sand is not glass, but it begs the question: how much proprietary value is there in glassmaking? > This may lead people to think cloud storage is a waste of money, [...] But that is exactly the argument being made -- that a trustless distributed system can substitute and obsolete cloud storage. |
|
|
Then I respectfully disagree. I don't think cloud storage is always the best use case, but I do believe it is a good value for what it actually offers you. Backblaze B2 is my ideal marker for what a 'good value' in cloud storage should look like. At $5/mo per TB[1] it easily crushes the metric of monthly cost being less than equivalent non-redundant refurbished storage media.
> that a trustless distributed system can substitute and obsolete cloud storage.
OK, I have literally no qualifications to say that this isn't true. After all, what I am NOT claiming is that it can't be done for cheaper. What I AM claiming, is that without a service like Sia, it is certainly not going to be cheaper for common use cases of end users. I'm talking about comparing harddrives to services.
> Buyers are essentially paying Amazon each month the entire cost of the hard drives used to store their data
I still think though, that a compelling case could be made without bad comparisons or hyperbole. Which makes this more frustrating than it needs to be imo.
[1]: https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-pricing.html - Assuming I am not deeply mistaken.