Decentralized file storage and blockchain cloud streaming

bcbully · April 2021

@Quizzical

What will this do for platforms like Staida? I remember awhile back during the initial stadia hype, you letting us know that latency would be a huge issue. That was platform breaking in my eyes. Do you think decentralized blockchain nodes could make these streaming platforms viable?

Asm0deus · April 2021

Why would it? The physics are still the same.

bcbully · April 2021

Asm0deus said:

Why would it? The physics are still the same.

Physics are completely diferent. The way the things work now servers a regional, centralized. Decentralized blockchain storage on the other hand uses nodes all over the place. Which brings the "server" closer to you. Access times way faster too.

Asm0deus · April 2021

bcbully said:

Asm0deus said:

Why would it? The physics are still the same.

Physics are completely diferent. The way the things work now servers a regional, centralized. Decentralized blockchain storage on the other hand uses nodes all over the place. Which brings the "server" closer to you. Access times way faster too.

Maybe but latency is direct result of newtonian physics, It's a direct result to of the materials used that isn't changing.

Now maybe software can be optimized and nodes can be closer to you however if you interact with point A in Alaska to point B in Cali whether you go through a decentralized blockchain node or some central server you are still limited by the distance and copper/fiber used between both points.

I am not sure using blockchain tech would "decentralize" things like you think?

bcbully · April 2021

Asm0deus said:

bcbully said:

Asm0deus said:

Why would it? The physics are still the same.

Physics are completely diferent. The way the things work now servers a regional, centralized. Decentralized blockchain storage on the other hand uses nodes all over the place. Which brings the "server" closer to you. Access times way faster too.

Maybe but latency is direct result of newtonian physics, It's a direct result to of the materials used that isn't changing.

Now maybe software can be optimized and nodes can be closer to you however if you interact with point A in Alaska to point B in Cali whether you go through a decentralized blockchain node or some central server you are still limited by the distance and copper/fiber used between both points.

I am not sure using blockchain tech would "decentralize" things like you think?

Decentralized as in your files split and stored in multiple proximty (your neighborhood) weighted locations.

Helluva a lot quicker than getting data from la or NYC when you live in Michigan.

Mendel · April 2021

bcbully said:

Asm0deus said:

bcbully said:

Asm0deus said:

Why would it? The physics are still the same.

Physics are completely diferent. The way the things work now servers a regional, centralized. Decentralized blockchain storage on the other hand uses nodes all over the place. Which brings the "server" closer to you. Access times way faster too.

Maybe but latency is direct result of newtonian physics, It's a direct result to of the materials used that isn't changing.

Now maybe software can be optimized and nodes can be closer to you however if you interact with point A in Alaska to point B in Cali whether you go through a decentralized blockchain node or some central server you are still limited by the distance and copper/fiber used between both points.

I am not sure using blockchain tech would "decentralize" things like you think?

Decentralized as in your files split and stored in multiple proximty (your neighborhood) weighted locations.

Helluva a lot quicker than getting data from la or NYC when you live in Michigan.

Maybe quicker for individual pieces, but decentralization has some degree of overhead required to manage the assets and put them back together. I'd be very concerned that any partial gains would be dwarfed by the overhead.

Vrika · April 2021

It's not usable for something like Stadia. Stadia does not stream files, it runs a game, and the game needs to run on a single server.

For file storage, Bittorrent is decentralized file storage and streaming. It works well enough.

Asm0deus · April 2021

Vrika said:

It's not usable for something like Stadia. Stadia does not stream files, it runs a game, and the game needs to run on a single server.

For file storage, Bittorrent is decentralized file storage and streaming. It works well enough.

Indeed.

However lets say there was some way to run a game like he says If I press B on my controller to swing my sword and I am in Alaska my friend in Cali that I am playing with still has to get that input or information somehow so he see's my character in game swing its sword.

That means there will still be latency like I mentioned in my previous post which is dependent on how far we are and the material used by the ISP's.

Like you say however the game has to be running somewhere on one PC even if the game uses say some blockchain method of doing some transactions in game which is why I said it would not be decentralized like he seems to thinks.

Quizzical · April 2021

Latency can be greatly reduced if the signal has to go much shorter distances. You can often have ping times below 1 ms over a LAN, for example, but that's not going to happen if you're connecting to a server a thousand miles away.

The problem for something like Stadia is that you need to be close to a node that can render the game for you. That requires fairly potent hardware, and far more so than a storage node that doesn't necessarily feature a powerful CPU and likely doesn't have a GPU at all.

It also requires that the game you want to play happen to already be installed the node that will run your game. In a data center, you can have a bunch of games installed on each of a bunch of nodes. Even if a given server only has 10% of the games that the service hosts installed, the data center can still pick a server that has your game as the one that you'll run it from.

If try to have just a single server be its own data center, then it has to have every single supported game already installed. Making you wait for it to download and install a game every time you want to play something is unacceptable. Cloud storage to download your files on the fly works fine if those files are a few megabytes. It does not work for a 50 GB game installation.

If game streaming is really going to take off, having the game data center built into the ISP's network is probably the optimal way to do it. That way, you could have both shorter physical distances and fewer hops, both of which help with both latency and reliability. ISPs haven't yet shown any real interest in doing so, however. At least for now, ISPs probably want for game streaming not to be popular, as it uses so much bandwidth.

Asm0deus · April 2021

Quizzical said:

Latency can be greatly reduced if the signal has to go much shorter distances. You can often have ping times below 1 ms over a LAN, for example, but that's not going to happen if you're connecting to a server a thousand miles away.

The problem for something like Stadia is that you need to be close to a node that can render the game for you. That requires fairly potent hardware, and far more so than a storage node that doesn't necessarily feature a powerful CPU and likely doesn't have a GPU at all.

It also requires that the game you want to play happen to already be installed the node that will run your game. In a data center, you can have a bunch of games installed on each of a bunch of nodes. Even if a given server only has 10% of the games that the service hosts installed, the data center can still pick a server that has your game as the one that you'll run it from.

If try to have just a single server be its own data center, then it has to have every single supported game already installed. Making you wait for it to download and install a game every time you want to play something is unacceptable. Cloud storage to download your files on the fly works fine if those files are a few megabytes. It does not work for a 50 GB game installation.

If game streaming is really going to take off, having the game data center built into the ISP's network is probably the optimal way to do it. That way, you could have both shorter physical distances and fewer hops, both of which help with both latency and reliability. ISPs haven't yet shown any real interest in doing so, however. At least for now, ISPs probably want for game streaming not to be popular, as it uses so much bandwidth.

Like I said blockchain isn't going to decentralize anything like Bcbully thinks and so will still be limited by the physics.

Oh look! we have the gdemami lol of approval so I guess we are on to something since he never has to courage to say much of much.

Vrika · April 2021

Quizzical said:

Latency can be greatly reduced if the signal has to go much shorter distances. You can often have ping times below 1 ms over a LAN, for example, but that's not going to happen if you're connecting to a server a thousand miles away.

The problem for something like Stadia is that you need to be close to a node that can render the game for you. That requires fairly potent hardware, and far more so than a storage node that doesn't necessarily feature a powerful CPU and likely doesn't have a GPU at all.

It also requires that the game you want to play happen to already be installed the node that will run your game. In a data center, you can have a bunch of games installed on each of a bunch of nodes. Even if a given server only has 10% of the games that the service hosts installed, the data center can still pick a server that has your game as the one that you'll run it from.

If try to have just a single server be its own data center, then it has to have every single supported game already installed. Making you wait for it to download and install a game every time you want to play something is unacceptable. Cloud storage to download your files on the fly works fine if those files are a few megabytes. It does not work for a 50 GB game installation.

If game streaming is really going to take off, having the game data center built into the ISP's network is probably the optimal way to do it. That way, you could have both shorter physical distances and fewer hops, both of which help with both latency and reliability. ISPs haven't yet shown any real interest in doing so, however. At least for now, ISPs probably want for game streaming not to be popular, as it uses so much bandwidth.

It might even be possible to allow everyone with good enough computers and internet access to download a server program that allows your own PC to act as server for streaming to one or two remote players while you're not using it. Technically it could work, and you could create a streaming service competing with services like Stadia that way, even if it's questionable whether it'd be practical or profitable.

But the game would still not run on blockchain. At best blockchain could be used to provide some support services, but it's not a technique that could be used to run and stream games.

AlBQuirky · April 2021

I'm a noob in this area. I'm from from small town Minnesota where my internet is spotty at best, I lose connectivity frequently (more than I should for what I pay for) and have the awesome USA "limited activity" (2TB/month) restriction.

Nothing "cloudbased" interests me in the slightest

Iselin · April 2021

"Breaking news: world peace at last thanks to blockchains. Details at 11"

bcbully · April 2021

Iselin said:

"Breaking news: world peace at last thanks to blockchains. Details at 11"

hahaha there are 3 or for chains doing exactly what we are talking about. All right up to the part about splitting the game client. I believe we answered our question and found a new one or two.

Present day platforms allow companies to buy their own wholly controlled decentralized blockchain storage chunks. Those chunks are a faction of the cost of say a amazon cloud storage. From there how a company develops their ecosystem on top of that purchased chunk is in their company's hands. Think of the blockchains as open source development platforms, Unity.

Quizzical · April 2021

Vrika said:
It might even be possible to allow everyone with good enough computers and internet access to download a server program that allows your own PC to act as server for streaming to one or two remote players while you're not using it. Technically it could work, and you could create a streaming service competing with services like Stadia that way, even if it's questionable whether it'd be practical or profitable.

But the game would still not run on blockchain. At best blockchain could be used to provide some support services, but it's not a technique that could be used to run and stream games.

I certainly agree that the game streaming itself wouldn't be over blockchain. That needs to be very low latency, and blockchain computations are notoriously slow.

There could conceivably be some clever role for blockchain elsewhere in the service. Connecting a gamer to a server, a gamer paying for access, or the "server" provider in a decentralized service getting paid all need to be secure, but don't need to happen so fast that a delay of a second or so would particularly matter.

Quizzical · April 2021

AlBQuirky said:
Nothing "cloudbased" interests me in the slightest

There's already a lot more in "the cloud" than you might realize. For example, do you use web-based e-mail?

AlBQuirky · April 2021

Quizzical said:

AlBQuirky said:
Nothing "cloudbased" interests me in the slightest

There's already a lot more in "the cloud" than you might realize. For example, do you use web-based e-mail?

I use GMail, so I guess, yes? But when my whole internet connection goes down, nothing on the net works for me

That's why I don't want ANY games that won't run without internet access

Rungar · April 2021

one ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them. That's what comes to my mind when you mention blockchain.

maskedweasel · April 2021

Quizzical said:

Vrika said:
It might even be possible to allow everyone with good enough computers and internet access to download a server program that allows your own PC to act as server for streaming to one or two remote players while you're not using it. Technically it could work, and you could create a streaming service competing with services like Stadia that way, even if it's questionable whether it'd be practical or profitable.

But the game would still not run on blockchain. At best blockchain could be used to provide some support services, but it's not a technique that could be used to run and stream games.

I certainly agree that the game streaming itself wouldn't be over blockchain. That needs to be very low latency, and blockchain computations are notoriously slow.

There could conceivably be some clever role for blockchain elsewhere in the service. Connecting a gamer to a server, a gamer paying for access, or the "server" provider in a decentralized service getting paid all need to be secure, but don't need to happen so fast that a delay of a second or so would particularly matter.

Well.. since blockchain is generally just used as a transactional system, I don't see how this would even work. Decentralized file storage is a thing, and in some cases it's already used to share files for games... but block chain as a service oriented system doesn't make any sense. Firstly, what's even the use case of it? Even if you were to create some kind of system that would utilize block chain for streaming game-play it wouldn't be fast, it would be extremely slow, and require a ton of power.

As pieces of a game it makes far more sense, and is already utilized in some games. You could utilize blockchain for characters, currency, items, etc. Gameplay mechanics themselves, or a video can't run on blockchain.

Quizzical · April 2021

maskedweasel said:

Quizzical said:

Vrika said:
It might even be possible to allow everyone with good enough computers and internet access to download a server program that allows your own PC to act as server for streaming to one or two remote players while you're not using it. Technically it could work, and you could create a streaming service competing with services like Stadia that way, even if it's questionable whether it'd be practical or profitable.

But the game would still not run on blockchain. At best blockchain could be used to provide some support services, but it's not a technique that could be used to run and stream games.

I certainly agree that the game streaming itself wouldn't be over blockchain. That needs to be very low latency, and blockchain computations are notoriously slow.

There could conceivably be some clever role for blockchain elsewhere in the service. Connecting a gamer to a server, a gamer paying for access, or the "server" provider in a decentralized service getting paid all need to be secure, but don't need to happen so fast that a delay of a second or so would particularly matter.

Well.. since blockchain is generally just used as a transactional system, I don't see how this would even work. Decentralized file storage is a thing, and in some cases it's already used to share files for games... but block chain as a service oriented system doesn't make any sense. Firstly, what's even the use case of it? Even if you were to create some kind of system that would utilize block chain for streaming game-play it wouldn't be fast, it would be extremely slow, and require a ton of power.

As pieces of a game it makes far more sense, and is already utilized in some games. You could utilize blockchain for characters, currency, items, etc. Gameplay mechanics themselves, or a video can't run on blockchain.

The way that I would envision it is that random people would be able to make their gaming desktop available to be used by someone else to stream a game. Which games are available for others to stream off of your desktop? Whichever ones you have installed from among some approved list, with some program to do a hash of the game files at launch to verify that you have a correct, unmodded version. You could make your desktop available or unavailable to use whenever you want, though if someone is using it to stream a game, it would take some time to get them off of it--and you'd get blacklisted from the service if you intentionally killed the streaming process early.

When you go to play a game by streaming it from someone else's gaming desktop, you pick the game you want to play, and the service looks for a free computer that supports that game and is near you. Once it finds it, it launches the game on the other person's computer and starts streaming it from his to yours. Ideally, it finds something very near you, such as in the same town and using the same ISP.

So what does blockchain have to do with this? For the game streaming itself, nothing. Even for the matchmaking, probably still nothing. But why would you ever make your desktop available for someone else to stream games off of, rather than using it for mining or some such? Because you get paid to, of course. Could there be some role of blockchain in allowing the person playing the game to pay the person hosting it? I don't know, but it isn't immediately obvious that the answer is "no".

Running a game off of whoever has it installed has more to do with older torrents than blockchain, of course. But that might make it possible to mostly stream games off of a computer that is near you, rather than hundreds of miles and several extra server hops away. Or it might be completely impractical for one reason or another.

Kyleran · April 2021

Best thread of the week.

Amaranthar · April 2021

Torval said:

It seems like people have some out of band ideas about what blockchain is or can deliver at least for established systems. For one thing blockchain does not equal cryptocurrency. For another, it doesn't mean those storage transactions are distributed across every workstation. It provides a verifiable transaction chain among several other things. Blockchain storage solutions may provide a less expensive option than traditional storage but is something that needs to fit a proper use case and the business model and system it is paired with. Blockchain storage is a hybrid cloud solution that works with regional server clusters (like Redshift) and localized networks. This is a way to track, manage, and calculate on business assets.

IBM has some reasonably easy to understand explanations of their blockchain storage and services. None of it has to do with cryptocurrency by the way.

https://www.ibm.com/it-infrastructure/storage/blockchain

https://www.ibm.com/it-infrastructure/storage/containers/redhat-openshift

Microsoft's Blockchain page.
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/solutions/blockchain/

And Red Hat's OpenShift page which can implement blockchain or traditional solutions.
https://www.openshift.com/

They talk about it's use for bank transactions, and it'll be used for cryptocurrencies too.
Tulip bulbs and seashells aren't out of the realm of possibility either.

Amaranthar · April 2021

Torval said:

Amaranthar said:

Torval said:

It seems like people have some out of band ideas about what blockchain is or can deliver at least for established systems. For one thing blockchain does not equal cryptocurrency. For another, it doesn't mean those storage transactions are distributed across every workstation. It provides a verifiable transaction chain among several other things. Blockchain storage solutions may provide a less expensive option than traditional storage but is something that needs to fit a proper use case and the business model and system it is paired with. Blockchain storage is a hybrid cloud solution that works with regional server clusters (like Redshift) and localized networks. This is a way to track, manage, and calculate on business assets.

IBM has some reasonably easy to understand explanations of their blockchain storage and services. None of it has to do with cryptocurrency by the way.

https://www.ibm.com/it-infrastructure/storage/blockchain

https://www.ibm.com/it-infrastructure/storage/containers/redhat-openshift

Microsoft's Blockchain page.
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/solutions/blockchain/

And Red Hat's OpenShift page which can implement blockchain or traditional solutions.
https://www.openshift.com/

They talk about it's use for bank transactions, and it'll be used for cryptocurrencies too.
Tulip bulbs and seashells aren't out of the realm of possibility either.

Did you even read the details or watch any of the sales videos before hauling out the Q-conspiracy bogeyman? The blockchain in this case is used to track items for bank transactions. Everything in a supply chain has to be tracked for "bank transactions" even if the tracking system isn't blockchain based so your "scary" point, that "crypto" will somehow sneak in, makes no sense.

Not only that the explanation even touched on how blockchain does not equal cryptocurrency. Blockchain offers the ability to expedite real time tracking of items down to the component if necessary (if the system was built to track that). What it can offer is a way to more accurately provide real time logistics regarding where supply chain components are, as an example.

Microsoft XBox uses Azure blockchain to more quickly calculate their Xbox royalties. I would imagine this is because everything can be more quickly and accurately tracked with regards to usage. This allows them to calculate their royalties much quicker. That doesn't mean they're using cryptocurrencies and has nothing to do with such.

Cryptocurrencies, like Ethereum, do use blockchain but that doesn't mean a blockchain system automagically equates to a crypto integration. Not only that but as we've seen with ridiculous systems like NFTs being associated with easily copied digital creations, the source doesn't need to be blockchain to use a crypto.

Torval, you said it yourself, "the details or watch any of the sales videos", which I'd point out that aren't telling the whole story in any case.
The real point is that it's not how they use it now, it's how it will be used in the future.

As an example, G. W. Bush passed the law that allowed tracking of everything because of 9-11.
And it was abused, laws broken, lies told, to spy on Donald Trump behind false accusations paid for by a political opponent.

What makes you think that this transaction system won't be evolved into THE SYSTEM of currency?

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not against Blockchain technology, but against it not being restricted before it's too late. Same for Cryptocurrencies.

I just want people to be aware and for this issue to be resolved.

And no, I do not trust the tech giants.

Cuddleheart · April 2021

So I think bittorrent has a crypto sorta like the OP described. I believe the problem(for bittorrent, not crypto as a whole) is the value of the coin doesn't make it worth mining or whatever you have to do for them.

Amaranthar · April 2021

Cuddleheart said:

So I think bittorrent has a crypto sorta like the OP described. I believe the problem(for bittorrent, not crypto as a whole) is the value of the coin doesn't make it worth mining or whatever you have to do for them.

That was supposed to be a limiting factor.
But it didn't work because cryptocurrencies are actually a commodity, one that doesn't actually exist in the real world.

Kyleran · April 2021

Amaranthar said:

Torval said:

Amaranthar said:

Torval said:

It seems like people have some out of band ideas about what blockchain is or can deliver at least for established systems. For one thing blockchain does not equal cryptocurrency. For another, it doesn't mean those storage transactions are distributed across every workstation. It provides a verifiable transaction chain among several other things. Blockchain storage solutions may provide a less expensive option than traditional storage but is something that needs to fit a proper use case and the business model and system it is paired with. Blockchain storage is a hybrid cloud solution that works with regional server clusters (like Redshift) and localized networks. This is a way to track, manage, and calculate on business assets.

IBM has some reasonably easy to understand explanations of their blockchain storage and services. None of it has to do with cryptocurrency by the way.

https://www.ibm.com/it-infrastructure/storage/blockchain

https://www.ibm.com/it-infrastructure/storage/containers/redhat-openshift

Microsoft's Blockchain page.
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/solutions/blockchain/

And Red Hat's OpenShift page which can implement blockchain or traditional solutions.
https://www.openshift.com/

They talk about it's use for bank transactions, and it'll be used for cryptocurrencies too.
Tulip bulbs and seashells aren't out of the realm of possibility either.

Did you even read the details or watch any of the sales videos before hauling out the Q-conspiracy bogeyman? The blockchain in this case is used to track items for bank transactions. Everything in a supply chain has to be tracked for "bank transactions" even if the tracking system isn't blockchain based so your "scary" point, that "crypto" will somehow sneak in, makes no sense.

Not only that the explanation even touched on how blockchain does not equal cryptocurrency. Blockchain offers the ability to expedite real time tracking of items down to the component if necessary (if the system was built to track that). What it can offer is a way to more accurately provide real time logistics regarding where supply chain components are, as an example.

Microsoft XBox uses Azure blockchain to more quickly calculate their Xbox royalties. I would imagine this is because everything can be more quickly and accurately tracked with regards to usage. This allows them to calculate their royalties much quicker. That doesn't mean they're using cryptocurrencies and has nothing to do with such.

Cryptocurrencies, like Ethereum, do use blockchain but that doesn't mean a blockchain system automagically equates to a crypto integration. Not only that but as we've seen with ridiculous systems like NFTs being associated with easily copied digital creations, the source doesn't need to be blockchain to use a crypto.

Torval, you said it yourself, "the details or watch any of the sales videos", which I'd point out that aren't telling the whole story in any case.
The real point is that it's not how they use it now, it's how it will be used in the future.

As an example, G. W. Bush passed the law that allowed tracking of everything because of 9-11.
And it was abused, laws broken, lies told, to spy on Donald Trump behind false accusations paid for by a political opponent.

What makes you think that this transaction system won't be evolved into THE SYSTEM of currency?

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not against Blockchain technology, but against it not being restricted before it's too late. Same for Cryptocurrencies.

I just want people to be aware and for this issue to be resolved.

And no, I do not trust the tech giants.

Don't look now, but world government's are already getting into digital currencies with China (of course) leading the way.

https://www.paymentsjournal.com/digital-yuan-china-introduces-the-anti-bitcoin/

Uses a centralized ledger backed by the government and definitely not anonymous.

Howdy, Stranger!

Decentralized file storage and blockchain cloud streaming

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Decentralized file storage and blockchain cloud streaming

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV