[HN Gopher] Filecoin Foundation Grants 50k FIL to the Internet A... ___________________________________________________________________ Filecoin Foundation Grants 50k FIL to the Internet Archive Author : toomuchtodo Score : 86 points Date : 2021-04-01 20:15 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.archive.org) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.archive.org) | AnonymousOne wrote: | is there anyway to track the total energy cost of the Filecoin | ecosystem? | cecida wrote: | Wasn't this the coin that was subject to a 51% attack only last | month. It's a classic pump and dump shitcoin. | purplecabbage77 wrote: | Filecoin is actually built by Protocol Labs and Juan Benet, the | same team that works on IPFS. | | I'm not saying there aren't plenty of pump and dump shitcoins | out there, or that FIL is deserving of its current price, but I | don't think it's fair to call it a "pump and dump shitcoin" :-) | donaldtrump2024 wrote: | > And I am donating 100k bunglemudgeons as well, which is a | currency that only exists in my head. | | > Today it is the largest single donation to IA. Tomorrow based | on the value of FIL, it may be the smallest single donation. | | > It's a classic pump and dump shitcoin. | | No wonder HN has replaced StackOverflow as the go to dumpster- | fire for hate and snark online. | | This is a $10,000,000 donation to a non-profit that should be | near and dear to users of this forum, yet the comment section is | filled with drivel. | klodolph wrote: | I like the idea of a decentralized Internet Archive in theory, | but I'm very skeptical about the idea of decentralized (as | opposed to distributed) filesystems, and tying the whole system | to a cryptocurrency seems like this creates additional volatility | exactly in a situation where you want stability. | | Buying hard drives and sticking them in data centers is a very | cost-effective, efficient way to store large amounts of data, and | with careful design (Internet Archive definitely qualifies) you | get amazing durability. The failure rate of hard disks is | relatively well-known or "mostly" bounded and predictable, so you | can fine-tune your data encoding to get a good tradeoff between | storage efficiency, CPU usage, network usage, and durability. | | With a decentralized system, you're adding intermediaries with | some amount of additional risk that is difficult to model. The | idea is that these intermediaries have "leftover" storage which | is basically free, and Filecoin lets them sell it. However, the | risk that these intermediaries lose the data is difficult to | model and so you would likely choose a wider encoding | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasure_code) with poorer storage | efficiency and higher CPU usage. | | Meanwhile, the cost of buying storage outright is already quite | low, and the cloud providers are already busy selling storage (or | using it themselves) in high-IO applications like active | databases, and this subsidizes raw storage (with low-I/O | requirements). Essentially, if someone in the cloud needs a 2TB | drive, the cloud provider can buy an 8TB drive instead, split it | in half, and sell it as "2TB + priority I/O" and "6TB + best- | effort I/O". | | Finally, in order to be stable long-term, Filecoin needs to | provide enough income to miners so they can be profitable. I | don't see a good story for how this can happen. The most | profitable thing you can do per-byte is to sell "leftover" | storage on existing systems that are not full, but this doesn't | give you enough to cover overhead, so you would want to run a | large operation. Once you are running a large operation, your | costs would be similar to that of a cloud provider, but your | customers would be choosing wider encodings with lower storage | efficiency. If Filecoin were to turn into a common market for | larger storage operations, it would then make sense to vet those | operations and develop business relationships with them, because | by reducing risk you could increase storage efficiency and reduce | costs. There is a de facto way to do this already: several cloud | providers implement the S3 API, so you can shop around fairly | easily, as long as you are willing to transport the data. | | Short story is that distributed storage is in a race to the | bottom with or without Filecoin, it's already "hyper- | competitive", and I'm unconvinced that Filecoin provides benefits | that outweight the drawbacks. | Hamuko wrote: | This reads like an April's Fools joke. | mdip wrote: | Knowing nothing about Filecoin, just reading the quotes ("Holy | Crow"), I assumed it is. | oarabbus_ wrote: | So what happens when someone puts password leaks or other | security breaches onto FIL or another decentralized storage | system? Compromising photos of individuals (revenge porn)? | Underage pornography? Stolen credit card data? Critical state | secrets or other sensitive information? | | I generally dislike the "DAE crytpo is bad because illegal | activity" argument, but in the case of distributed file storage | the harm profile is very different than "but it allows you to | spend money on illegal things" with payment-only cryptos. | Anything seedy you can do with bitcoin, you can also do with | cash. The same is not true for centralized vs. decentralized | cloud storage. | jowsie wrote: | You can already do this with regular old bitcoin. | | https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/20/child-abu... | Jtsummers wrote: | Neither Filecoin nor IPFS guarantee content is available | forever. In the general case of IPFS, _someone_ must be pinning | it or someone must have recently downloaded it (pinning keeps | it around until you unpin it, if you download it you may share | it out for a period of time). So suppose someone _does_ upload | some illegal content, if no one pins it or downloads it and the | original node hosting it were to drop off (as may be reasonably | expected if law enforcement becomes involved depending on | _what_ the content is) then it will disappear from the network. | IPFS does not forcibly distribute the content across the | network, only when it 's accessed does it become distributed. | And even then it's only temporary unless it's pinned and the | pinning node remains online. | | Filecoin, being based on IPFS, will be similar but with the | added limit of the content requiring payment. Without payment | it would, presumably, disappear very quickly from the network. | | It's a very different style than, say, Freenet (or at least | Freenet in the 00s, haven't looked at it recently) which makes | it deliberately difficult to discover where content is being | hosted and to remove it. | wmf wrote: | What will happen is hosts will delete the offending data and | lose their deposit on the contract (which will probably be | small enough to write off as "shrinkage"). | [deleted] | oarabbus_ wrote: | Well sort of defeats the purpose if hosts can do that, no? | wmf wrote: | What's the purpose of Filecoin? | rodiger wrote: | Stealing this from Reddit as it summarizes my feelings about | Filecoin's reward structure being a little ponziesque at current | prices: | | _" The primary demand for Filecoin is from people trying to mine | it. It requires that you deposit filecoin for every chunk of | storage you want to "seal" for mining. It also takes a long time | to seal and you have to get to 10tb or you can't even mine. So | people trying to build filecoin miners are likely the primary | source of demand for filecoin. Then as the price goes up more | people try to mine, but they also need to buy a ton of filecoin. | | People are definitely not spending billions to try and store shit | on IPFS. It's people trying to buy filecoin to mine more | filecoin. Sigh."_[0] | | That being said, the tech is pretty cool. And the funding scheme | is no different from most PoS coins out there. Proof of Stake | works best when there's already wide distribution of a coin. In | the initial stages the game theory is tricky. This is all a long- | winded way to say it's overpriced right now but could have a | bright future. | | [0] | https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/mhpaar/file... | duskwuff wrote: | And what's worse, the mining process has some rather absurd | system requirements: 128+ GB of RAM, 1 TB of SSD _cache_ | storage (separate from the data being stored!), and a high-end | GPU is "recommended". The sense I get is that it's impossible | to casually offer up some spare storage from a typical home | system, or even from a NAS -- the system requirements | effectively limit mining to people willing to spend a couple | thousand dollars on hardware. | | https://docs.filecoin.io/mine/hardware-requirements/ | colllectorof wrote: | This raises a giant red flag for me. Storage is storage. This | is not like hash mining, which is based on probabilities. You | either have the data or you don't. If you have the data, even | partially, this should be useful to the system. I can | conceive of no reason why a reasonably designed distributed | storage system would have such insane requirements. | pradn wrote: | If you take a look at the top storage providers, there's | dozens who are providing 10 PB+. These are folks that have | invested millions to earn FileCoin. | | https://stats.filecoin.io/d/z6FtI92Zz/filecoin-chain- | stats?o... | | Moreover, it's greatly disingenuous to claim that this system | lets casual users let their HD space given the system | requirements are so high. | VectorLock wrote: | If you want to use spare space to "mine" crypto, look at Chia | from the creator of BitTorrent. | | The space isn't used for anything useful like IPFS though. | arsome wrote: | That seems crazy, especially considering Sia and others have | functioning alternatives with no such insane requirements. | Maybe they're trying to corner some certain performance | oriented market, but that guarantees nothing about network | performance which I suspect will be a much larger impact than | any of it. | rodiger wrote: | Yeah seems like a weird combination of both PoS and PoW which | gets the best of neither. Would've been cool to see a novel | PoW here that actually translates into actual "work" for the | network. | ChainOfFools wrote: | or "borrow" the hardware and power from their school/employer | either without any authorization or for the ostensible | purpose of "testing/burn-in" | swiley wrote: | Is 10TB an arbitrary size or does it fluctuate like the bitcoin | difficulty? | | If it doesn't change then the whole thing is probably just | going to crash eventually. | | EDIT: after looking at the mining pdf in the child comment this | whole thing looks goofy. idk what to say. | rodiger wrote: | No, you don't _need_ 10TB. But you do need a crazy machine | with 128GB+ of RAM.[0] | | [0] https://docs.filecoin.io/mine/mining- | architectures/#protocol... | ac29 wrote: | That link makes it makes it sounds like you need three such | machines, one of which requires 256GiB RAM. To store 10TB, | which a commercial NAS could do with acceptable performance | with maybe 1 or 2 GiB RAM, tops. | google234123 wrote: | Are they aware that 10TB is about 160$ in Hard drives>? | StavrosK wrote: | > And the funding scheme is no different from most PoS coins | out there. | | "Proof of stake" or "Piece of shit"? Unfortunately it's | legitimately hard to tell what each person means with this | acronym. | oarabbus_ wrote: | Clearly proof of stake. "Shitcoin" has monopolized the | verbiage for, well, pieces of shit in crypto. | StavrosK wrote: | Oh, you are correct, thanks. | anonporridge wrote: | Why not both? | | Proof of shit coins are much more energy efficient than | wasteful proof of work. There's already tons of shit going | waste all over the world that could be used to build | distributed consensus in a fair and equitable way! | | After all, everybody poops. | swiley wrote: | You would think HN would like FIL since it's one of the more | environmentally friendly coins. Maybe the BTC hate really is | everyone feeling butthurt about not buying it on #bitcoin-otc in | 2011. | | EDIT: NVM the whole thing is a mess | duskwuff wrote: | > it's one of the more environmentally friendly coins | | I'm not convinced that's even true. It's still a proof-of-work | coin; the only real difference is that the work is storage- | intensive. | wmf wrote: | There's a huge difference between proof of useless work and | getting paid for storing real data. | duskwuff wrote: | The storage is incidental. Filecoin "storage miners" are | required to perform work to prove that they're still | storing the data. This work serves no purpose beyond acting | as a proof of storage, and performing this work has | nontrivial costs. | colllectorof wrote: | I like the _concept_ of incentivizing storage through a self- | governing decentralized system. I don 't like that it's named | "-coin" and that its website clearly trying to ride the wave of | blockchain hype without explaining the basic economics of the | system. | zelly wrote: | Nocoiners have already lost all hope. They're not even trying | to FUD anymore. | Sebb767 wrote: | As usual, HN is not one person. Also, I think most people are | pretty skeptical of anything -coin / -blockchain - like AI and | Cyber it sounds like a lot of the money is spent on marketing | and there's a good chance the whole thing is just a cash grab | or a pump and dump. | | This is not against Filecoin specifically - I don't know it -, | but if you tried to sell me "AI generated code enhancements", | I'm going to be skeptical based on that name alone, as well. | argvargc wrote: | Article posted 1st April. Hopefully it's real? | | Donating nearly 0.1% of the currently available supply to | archive.org would be pretty cool. | pluc wrote: | And I am donating 100k bunglemudgeons as well, which is a | currency that only exists in my head. | Fern_Blossom wrote: | I literally just did a huge rip on crypto currencies the other | day, mostly regarding bitcoin. However, there's one aspect to | Filecoin that I do see as... potential is a strong word, but | maybe appropriate still. It's not entirely fair to lump it in | with other cryptocoins. There is some value behind it, in means | of distributed storage. While I would argue it's more | efficient, easier and all around better to use standard | alternatives since Filecoin adds a layer of complexity to | marginal benefit... I can never argue it's completely useless. | There is some economic value backing it since it provides a | service outside of just being a cryptocurrency. | | If I woke up from a 15 year coma and was quickly told about | Bitcoin and Filecoin, one had a value of $200 each, the other | $50k. Then asked which one was the $50k one? I'd first say, | "Filecoin obviously" and second, please just kill me I don't | want to live in this bizzaro reality. | lifty wrote: | Are your 100k bunglemudgeons exchangeable for $10 million? | peytn wrote: | On bunglemudgeonexchange.ru, yes. I'm seeing a ton of depth | on their order book. Why not buy a few bunglemudgeons from me | and see for yourself? | lifty wrote: | If you guarantee 100x returns, I'm in. | peytn wrote: | I guarantee 100x returns as long as you never sell. | umvi wrote: | Sure - easy. | | 1. Find a rich person with money that needs laundering (this | is the hardest step) | | 2. Sell the "bunglemudgeons" (could just be a .txt doc that | contains the phrase "100k bunglemudgeons") to the rich person | in the form of an NFT for $10M | | 3. 100k Bunglemudgeons are now worth at least $10M | | 4. Rich person can now re-sell it to an alias of himself (or | a rich friend) for an even greater amount to launder his | dirty money | sneak wrote: | That's not how money laundering works. | umvi wrote: | How do people launder money with NFTs then? | sneak wrote: | They buy them from themselves, not by sending millions to | some random stranger, never to be recovered. | Jaxkr wrote: | Two important advantages Filecoin has over bunglemudgeons are: | | 1. Filecoin has a market with liquidity. Archive.org could sell | their coins for roughly $9.7m. | | 2. Filecoin can currently be used to purchase reliable cloud | storage at a significantly lower cost than AWS or GCP. | | I can definitely relate to cynicism towards crypto/blockchain, | particularly in the defi sector, but Filecoin is doing good | work. | ac29 wrote: | > Filecoin can currently be used to purchase reliable cloud | storage at a significantly lower cost than AWS or GCP. | | I spent a little while looking at their site and docs, and I | cant find any information on what storage actually costs. | Where are you finding this information? | yabadubakta wrote: | They should take the 9.7 million and manage the storage | themselves. The thing is they could host filecoin rigs which | also provide the storage so it's a win win for Filecoin and | also internet archive | malux85 wrote: | What's the market value of bunglemudgeons on CoinMarketCap? | | Because filecoin right now is at 194USD and the internet | archive can sell them on the open market, right now if they | want, today. | brighton36 wrote: | Is this prestigious? | toomuchtodo wrote: | > Today, the Filecoin Foundation announced a 50,000 FIL grant | to the Internet Archive - the largest single donation in the | digital library's 25-year history. | warkdarrior wrote: | Today it is the largest single donation to IA. Tomorrow based | on the value of FIL, it may be the smallest single donation. | liquidise wrote: | Filecoin, at it's _lowest_ value since inception, traded | for ~ $4, which would still make this a $200k donation. I | hope we can agree such a donation is still worthy of | praise. | | Any currency risks devaluation in some form. Cryptos are | orders of magnitude more volatile than USD, of course. That | is both a curse and a blessing. This donation is evidence | of that, but belittling this donation because of | disagreements with the underlying tech does little to add | to the conversation. | mholm wrote: | To those curious, this is worth around 10 million dollars USD as | of today. | brink wrote: | It looks like people are dumping on the news. lol | | Edit: nvm. Realized that was an entire market dip. | mholm wrote: | Yeah. Was worth nearly 12 million a few hours ago. | [deleted] | henvic wrote: | Sad when even the Internet Archive fall for the digital tulip | mania. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania | | Crypto currencies might have space and maybe someday a good one | might appear, but so far, it's all a Ponzi scheme. | | Why not just build an application to mirror their data in a | distributed manner using Torrent and let people support their | efforts by downloading it? | anonporridge wrote: | While there's tons of unfounded mania going on in the crypto | space, to paint it all as nothing more than Tulip mania is | really pretty ignorant at this point. | vmception wrote: | Non-profits can accept assets of any kind, and it takes fifteen | seconds to sell $10,000,000 worth of FIL for USD. | | It is likely that a majority of charitable contributions (any | donation to a non-profit or from a non-profit) are transfers of | assets with a wide spectrum of liquidity, mostly illiquid. | Accepting an asset is not an indication of interest or | speculation or bullishness, any contribution towards a non- | profit only tells you that the donor was accepted. | | You extrapolated a lot for something you will never have | information on, as the subsequent transactions will never be | reported. | ChrisArchitect wrote: | So this isn't an April Fools post? | throwaway012919 wrote: | Obvious PR stunt. Hope they cash out soon. | ignoranceprior wrote: | The idea of making the Internet Archive decentralized is a very | good one. It would be a real tragedy if the IA burned down like | the Library of Alexandria did. I know Archive Team/Jason Scott | attempted this a few years back with the IA.bak project but it | seems like that died, so I hope this time turns out better. | | That said, I don't actually understand how cryptocurrency or | blockchains help with distributed file storage. Are these | "filecoins" actually useful for anything, like incentivizing | people to make copies of files? I'm by default skeptical when I | hear about cryptocurrencies because the majority of ICOs seem to | be get-rich-schemes riding off the Bitcoin buzzwave that then | fizzle out over time. | [deleted] | thebean11 wrote: | > Are these "filecoins" actually useful for anything, like | incentivizing people to make copies of files? | | Yes, that's exactly what they are. They incentive making | copies, then periodically proving you have the copies. | djwhitt wrote: | People have to keep renewing the contract to pay for those | copies though. Afaik there's nothing that guarantees people | will maintain them indefinitely after the contract expires. | thebean11 wrote: | Yeah that's right, I'm not sure how you could possibly | value or incentivize indefinite storage. All storage | mediums are consumable and require upkeep, a "one time" | pricing model doesn't really make sense. | djwhitt wrote: | Arweave (https://www.arweave.org/) is attempting it. Of | course, we'll have to wait and see if they're successful. | thebean11 wrote: | I would assume that eventually the cost of "old storage" | will be too much and new payments wouldn't be able to | subsidize it anymore (sort of like a failing Ponzi | scheme) but to be fair I haven't heard of this. Thanks | for the link! | djwhitt wrote: | You're welcome! I have some questions about how the | network is going to play out over time wrt mining | centralization and access incentivization, but their | overall funding model seems sound to me. It's based an | endowment that pays out over time to fund storage mining. | Their yellow paper (https://www.arweave.org/yellow- | paper.pdf) is worth a read if you want to learn about all | the details. | progval wrote: | IPFS devs commented on IA.bak back then, saying he would write | a proposal to store IA.bak on IPFS: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9148576 | | AFAICT, there was no follow up at the time, according to | https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/INTERNETARCHIVE.BAK/i... | ; so IA.bak went with git-annex, but it had issues given the | scale of the project | pradn wrote: | From what I understand, Filecoin contracts are fixed-term. This | means you need to read data back from the Filecoin network at | the end of the term and negotiate another fixed-term contract | to store those files again. Though Filecoin storage fees are | low, isn't this back-and-forth a big pain for real archivists? | I suppose you only need 1/n of the storage on your side if you | stagger the data "withdrawal" and "deposit" actions. Does | anyone have insight into this? | henvic wrote: | Decentralizing it would be far more simple if they provided | something such as an application you could download and | partially mirror some parts of it, for example. | | Eventually, given enough interest, they'd mirror everything. | Maybe they could even build this on top of Torrent. | Jtsummers wrote: | Or even straight on top of IPFS since there are existing HTTP | gateways for IPFS to access the content and most of the | archive is static in nature. Provide a client which can be | used to coordinate between the numerous volunteers to ensure | a wide (ideally full) backup of IA distributed over IPFS, | paired with volunteer pinning of specific portions by | interest groups and individuals. Their self-hosted IPFS | node(s) would become the permanent seeds for this system and | broader use of IPFS would ensure wider (though not guaranteed | sans pinning) availability. | kevincox wrote: | I agree, a better route would probably be exposing the archive | via IPFS. I wonder if they could split the archive like this: | | - Sites are archived to IPFS. | | - The URL -> Archive mapping is published in a merkle dag. | | This way people can help mirror the archive (or subsets of it) | by replicating the IPFS archive. You can also separately mirror | the merkle dag which would be relatively small. If sites are | fairly predictable you could even crawl it yourself and verify | that it matches the data that archive.org reported (although | there are probably many sites that change on every request so | the hash won't match exactly, but you could at least do some | analysis/manual inspection on the diffs to check that | archive.org appears to be reporting correct data). | Groxx wrote: | They effectively are doing this, including with IPFS: | https://dweb.archive.org/details/home | | I'm not sure what the current state is though. And IPFS is | basically just a protocol for storage, it doesn't _ensure / | encourage_ storage in any way - that's the point of filecoin. | pradn wrote: | You hit the hammer on the nail. IPFS urls point to content- | addressable data. These URLs can be pinned by anyone running | an IPFS node. However, what's missing is an easy way to | "seed" lists of IPFS files with whatever storage you have. | Ideally, there's a way for me to choose to contribute - say - | 30 GB of space to a particular project, and the system will | take care of pinning the most-needed files, up to that | storage limit. This would be useful for any number of public | archival projects. | | I've seen efforts where people bring up a web page that tells | you which torrents to seed, based on how many seeds are | active. But this is manual work, and not too robust. | kevincox wrote: | I was thinking that most people would just pin the content | that is most interesting to them. But it would be also to | pin the rarest content. There is no reason that both can't | exist to capture multiple motivations. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-01 23:01 UTC)