For the last decade, the conversation around decentralized storage has been dominated by blockchain projects.
Projects like Filecoin and Arweave have focused on solving Global Permanence by relying on Global Consensus: the entire network must validate and record the proofs of storage for every file, secured by a native token, mining rigs, and a global ledger. Highly complex, computationally expensive, and not user friendly.
This type of architecture might serve a purpose / use case, but I feel it is the wrong approach for self-hosted storage users that want a way to have cloud / offsite backup for family photos, documents, etc. There is no need for a global market, gas fees, or a wallet. The only requirement is a guarantee of data safety for recovery in the event of a disaster (e.g. your house burned down).
Commercial vendors like Backblaze are currently the main solution for this, but for users who cannot afford cloud storage and have TBs of data to safeguard, there must be a better way.
cfelicio•1mo ago
Projects like Filecoin and Arweave have focused on solving Global Permanence by relying on Global Consensus: the entire network must validate and record the proofs of storage for every file, secured by a native token, mining rigs, and a global ledger. Highly complex, computationally expensive, and not user friendly.
This type of architecture might serve a purpose / use case, but I feel it is the wrong approach for self-hosted storage users that want a way to have cloud / offsite backup for family photos, documents, etc. There is no need for a global market, gas fees, or a wallet. The only requirement is a guarantee of data safety for recovery in the event of a disaster (e.g. your house burned down).
Commercial vendors like Backblaze are currently the main solution for this, but for users who cannot afford cloud storage and have TBs of data to safeguard, there must be a better way.
What are your thoughts?