what you think bout STORJ? any interstellar trip potential

>>2258337
Fuck no.

The team can't get the shit to work.

full of literal commies

>>2258337
SIA is better in every way. At least for now.

harsh opinions. but already bought it. somehow i like the idea.
will keep for some time and see how it goes

>>2258337
>Second initial coin offering

secondico/coinswap/nameit. they are messing up a little but. hell knows consequences. risky, but will give it a shot

File: 1494709680827.png (691KB, 667x720px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 667x720px

>>2258361
This.

>Technical design is more sound that competing storage coins
>the storage network is currently active and works, and has been for awhile now
>cost of storage is drastically lower than Amazon S3 (by way of comparison Amazon S3 costs $115 monthly while Sia is $10, and the download bandwidth cost for Amazon is $460 while Sia is $5)

Meanwhile, Storj is just mostly a marketing-first coin, meaning its more about getting money and pumping up the price rather than focusing on the technical. And they instead offer a pay-as-you-go model where hosts are paid with some frequency by the users. If the users disappear or go offline, the host stops getting paid.

If you actually put money into Storj for the long-term, then you deserve to be robbed blind.

I gotta admit, Kim Dotcom's video presentation convinced me. It looks so clean. I just don't see anyone else having the experience Kim has.

>>2258552
marketing-first. that's what i feel about it. and we know marketing does miracles.
probably will keep it to first mooning

is it just marketing if he is literally demonstrating the product? Thats better then most of these ICOs that just give a white paper saying they will try to create some start trek replicator mirical stuff.
I dont know storj seems solid because its a normal fucking product, there is a guys experienced behind it, and hey there is a demo. He was even smart enough to go to etherum. I mean what exactly is lacking? I'd like to know, I'm holding

File: 1494729318567.gif (1MB, 540x303px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 540x303px

>>2258630
Marketing can't save you in the long-term if the design is inferior. This is a market where maximalism and network effects play a strong role.

>>2258657
No on-blockchain storage contracts and choice to instead opt for the pay-as-you-go model.

That means, at any point in time if you use Storj, you have no security about whether you are going to get your next payment, or whether the host is suddenly going to disappear.

As the host, it's reasonable to assume that renters are not going to have great uptime. They might miss payments, or if you are renting data on a longer timescale, they might intentionally cheat you out of a payment. For example, a monthly payment schedule means that I can cheat the host by a full month worth of storage, which could be several dollars. Multiply that by 100 cheating renters, and the host has a significant revenue problem. To protect themselves, the hosts need to require short hosting cycles and even then there's no guarantee that their storage contracts will persist for the duration specified in the contract.

The host also has nothing holding them to the contract. If the host gets a better offer - say, 10% more money - the optimal decision for the host to make is to drop the existing data and to take the contract worth more money. There is nothing in Storj that prevents this behavior, and there are no financial penalties that can be levied against the host to discourage this behavior. The network is relying on the good will of hosts to not leave.

The potential for fraud is big. I strongly advise against touching a business with that kind of business model unless they find a way to fix this.

>>2258766
Have yo looked at other Storj competitors? Do they have the same issues as storj?

File: 1475416009302.jpg (57KB, 482x549px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 482x549px

>>2258828
This is why I said I favor Sia.

All money is paid up-front and put into a file contract. The host is guaranteed to get paid for storing the data over a long timescale, regardless of the actions of the renter. Similarly, the host is guaranteed to not get paid if they lose the data. The renter doesn't need to be online to check. Furthermore, in Sia the host can put up collateral. So if, for example, the renter is paying 10 SC into the file contract, the host can pay 30 SC into the file contract, which means at the end of the contract the host will either get paid 40 SC or 0 SC. This is significant incentive for the host keep the data. To make it profitable for the host to drop the contract, the next person would need to offer a payment that is 4x what the existing contract is worth. This can be compared to Storj, where it's worthwhile for the host to switch after any bump in price, even very small ones.

It's important to remember that on a decentralized network, you are dealing with greedy, anonymous, fully untrusted hosts. You have no idea who is getting your data, what their motivations are, and what their timelines are. If a host knows they only care to store data for 6 weeks, but knows they can sell the data for more by advertising that they will keep it for 2 years, they can leave suddenly. On Sia, it is very expensive for a host to leave early. On Storj, there is no cost at all.

(cont)

>>2258930
>>2258828
There are other issues that Sia will run into later on in terms of scale. Because of their design, it'll be really hard for them to sell to consumers, which is why they're focused on enterprises. Overall though, more money to be made from the latter than the former.

Plus, to me it says a lot that the Siacoin team is keeping everything quiet UNTIL they hash out all the bugs and kinks, and then decide to go all into marketing. These people know what they're doing.

The other alternative is MaidSafe, which is very ambitious and goes beyond decentralized storage. They also have a much softer focus on efficiency and use a completely novel scheme for achieving consensus (ie, not a blockchain).They're calling it proof-of-resource, and its used instead of the traditional proof-of-work (Bitcoin) and proof-of-stake (Ethereum). So its still a giant "?" in terms of reliability. Much review will be needed.