Vault tagging: okay, I misread that.
Couldn’t a colluding group tag a bunch of vaults with the same tag thereby rendering the network unable to store enough copies? Also as a big farmer I would never tag my vaults because that would mean less business for me.
So I doubt the idea is feasible.
You’d have a full copy with only one chunk. You mean all 4 replicas. Okay.
For private data ou can’t tell which vaults (if any) hold those chunks. You’d have to destroy 100% of your investment (assuming you’re renting the h/w) in vaults and you would still
- Not be 100% that you could cause data loss
- Impacted power users would lose just a fraction of their data
- it would require enormous concentration (10%) across multiple geographically distributed locations
That doesn’t sound too concerning to me, but then again I am a guy who’s been consistently stating on this forum that I would only store copies of my data on the network. If the disappearance of a file bothered me, I’d upload it again.
Sure but you’re already disadvantaged by the fact that you’re running a professional operation (you pay for hosting, maybe tax, etc.) vs. people who run at homes to offset the cost of their HDD which they had to buy anyway.
Now on top of that ou want to sacrifice another 35% of your capacity on RAID6. I don’t think you’ll get very far with that approach… Did I mention your competitors also don’t pay anything for the bandwidth?
But if you’re so sure that’s great - rest assured that the rat race will commence as soon as it becomes clearer (say, in beta) how the financials would work out.
Anyone can spawn 100TB worth of “fat” EC2 instances at a short notice
hs1.8xlarge $3968 $2.24 per Hour $5997 $1.81 per Hour
But my biggest doubt is reserved for the idea that running hosted farm can compete with the storage from the same provider. How? If someone like Amazon charges you X and you and MaidSafe add a 10% mark up on top of that! how can that be competitive vs. the same user saving his data to S3?
I took a quick look at Google’s pricing and each GB costs 0.04 to store (per month) and 0.01 to serve (once). If you store 1TB and serve it once a month, that’s $600/year or 60K for your little farm. Why would anyone pay you 70K for service they can get from The Unevil Co. for 60K/year? Maybe my calculation is wrong but I also tried this wizard (http://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html) and 1TB of data storage with 10TB of monthly transfers to the Internet costs $1,300/month. 90% of which is bandwidth charges. Sure you could say you won’t need that much, but how much exactly will you need? If you just store data and keep it there, you won’t make any money. Any in any case to download my 1TB of garbage backups I have on S3 It’d cost me $10, but to do the same on your farm hosted there would have to cost at least $12. And you’d be getting just 1/4 of my requests.
Okay so this was a random rant but what ties it together is my belief that many posters think that not dealing with $ or other fiat gives them magical economic powers. It doesn’t.
One last OT observation: I noticed how Amazon asks for an up-front payment for those instances (see the $3968 figure in column 2 above). Not knowing whether you’ll ever get any requests for data that will be stored on you box will turn into a big gamble on multiple factors (who does what, how SAFE fares, etc).
I do not believe that farmer concentration and professional farming will be as emphasized as it is the case with Bitcoin miners and their pools.