Yep, we fell for the "good products sell themselves" meme. :/ As engineers, we felt uncomfortable promising the moon like so many other ICOs did (and still do). Blockchain-wise, the system we built was actually very conservative: aside from the file contract payment channels, our consensus design doesn't stray far from Bitcoin. As it turns out, the blockchain is the easy part! The hard part is, once you've got your network of hosts, how do you turn that into a truly great product? Sia is crazy cheap, it streams video at 1Gbps, it's got plenty of 9s, but those metrics don't mean anything in a vacuum. We've finally hit upon a more user-friendly product in Skynet, and we're doing a lot more PR this time, but we've still got a long way to go.
I really wish you well. Makes me consider actually trying Sia for our backups, which would make this the first time I or anyone else I know has actually used a block chain product in production... or for much of anything for that matter.
The block chain world is absolutely overrun with over-funded over-specced over-engineered boil the ocean projects that will never ship anything usable, solutions in search of problems, stuff that just plain doesn't work for fundamental math/algorithmic reasons, and of course a ton of outright scams. All of these are loud and lean heavy on the hype because they have nothing else. Just keep working and you will emerge once the dust settles. Not saying forget about marketing, but focus more on product.
I don't really want to hijack this discussion by discussing merits (or lack thereof) of other cryptocurrencies. Maybe post a link on HN for the cryptoeconomics of this other project and then we can discuss it there?
You opened the door to this avenue of discussion by implying or suggesting by omission or dismissal that no successful implementation currently exists. The existence and purported demonstration of work of Sia is not yet proven. I’ve never heard of Sia before now, and I will research it now that I know that it’s a thing to study. But I digress.
It’s contrary to parliamentary procedure and rules of debate to make a statement in order to back up your own point and not admit counterexamples and discussion of said statement and it’s implications as well as it’s intent and factual basis in the current reality we all share, regardless of which parts of it are presently up for debate.
You would have us not be informed about relevant contextual information regarding a point you yourself brought up, just so we don’t derail a discussion you yourself are replying to? We’re all valid commenters with valid comments provided we have something relevant to say.
It's meant for private encrypted backups instead of public distributed files, so it is less complicated. The users just pay the people who store it through a contract.
