Hacker News Reader

S3 and blockchain have very different use cases right?

Blockchain being for small quantities of data made immutable, used in a p2p manner with as many copies as there are peers.

S3 generally being purpose built for short term (relative to blockchain) storage and price.

View on HN

Yes, they have different uses cases. But one can easily see an arbitrage opportunity here for building an immortal database atop S3 (and other cloud services) for a lot less money. For $12,000 USD, I could store the same data in S3 for (at the very least) 445,217 years. (Using the example above.)

That makes the value proposition of the Ethereum blockchain as a data store a lot less attractive.

This is so theoretical, I don't think it has any value. Meanwhile, consider the effort involved in destroying all data stored in S3 vs destroying the entire ETH blockchain. One is expensive, possibly only achievable by a national superpower, the other is virtually impossible without destroying the planet.

I fully realize the theoretical advantages of blockchains. I can still store multiple copies in multiple clouds across multiple availability zones cheaper. The original question did not imply the destruction of S3.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com