2026-01-15 14:28:53

Seeing Walrus's storage solution, I feel the approach is quite pragmatic. The core logic is straightforward—don't mindlessly copy data just for security.

They use Red Stuff erasure coding to break files into fragments and disperse them across different nodes. As long as you can gather enough fragments, you can fully restore the original data. It sounds simple, but the effectiveness is crucial.

Compared to traditional multiple replication schemes, this approach can ensure high system availability and fault tolerance while reducing the replication factor to about 4 to 5 times. It’s important to understand how much this impacts storage costs. From an engineering perspective, this is about replacing brute-force stacking with smarter algorithms, which is the true way for decentralized storage.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

16 Likes

Reward
16
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

wrekt_but_learning

· 01-17 19:14

Erasure coding should have been promoted long ago; it's much more reliable than the replication schemes that those projects boast about every day. Algorithm optimization is the real way to go, not just piling up machines. I've never heard of Red Stuff, but the logic sounds very insightful... Saving costs is indeed a strong point. Walrus has a clear approach, not following the old套路, I like it. Reducing the replication factor so much while still ensuring fault tolerance? That's interesting, need to do some research.

View OriginalReply0

MerkleTreeHugger

· 01-16 19:01

Erasure coding is indeed clever, far superior to those naive machine stacking solutions. --- Reducing the replication factor by 4 to 5 times? The cost is directly cut in half. This is the kind of Web3 we should have. --- To put it simply, algorithm optimization still beats brute force. I approve of Walrus's approach. --- Wait, can this fragmentation dispersal truly resist censorship? It still depends on the specific implementation. --- But what about the risks of red coding? Does the probability of node maliciousness also increase? --- An elegant algorithm is elegant, but I'm worried that the economic incentives haven't been well designed. --- Finally, someone is not blindly copying. Now this is a proper storage solution.

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainDecoder

· 01-15 14:58

The erasure coding logic has actually been verified by the storage industry long ago. It's indeed clever for Walrus to adopt it. Eliminating redundant copying significantly reduces costs. From a technical perspective, this is the right approach.

View OriginalReply0

FloorSweeper

· 01-15 14:57

Erasure coding should have been popularized long ago, it’s a hundred times better than those silly data copying methods. Storage costs are directly cut in half, that’s true efficiency. --- Finally, someone is using brains for storage, not just copying and copying all day... --- Wait, isn’t this the logic that IPFS has been using all along? Walrus is only now adopting it? --- Reducing the replication factor to 4 to 5 times is very critical, it has a huge impact on the node economic model. --- Algorithm optimization will always be more cost-effective than brute-force hardware stacking. Why do so many people still not get this? --- Fragment stitching sounds simple, but designing a real-world fault-tolerance mechanism is the real challenge... --- Decentralized storage should be done like this, otherwise costs will always be a bottleneck. --- Red code erasure coding sounds impressive, but how to handle cross-region node synchronization delays in practice? --- The efficiency aspect is well done, but doesn’t that increase data recovery time? --- Compared to projects that only know how to stack nodes, this approach is definitely much clearer.

View OriginalReply0

HodlKumamon

· 01-15 14:56

The erasure coding approach is indeed clever. Compared to traditional methods, a 4 to 5 times replication factor significantly reduces costs instantly.

View OriginalReply0

NFTPessimist

· 01-15 14:44

Error correction codes are indeed much smarter than just blindly copying. Who wouldn't love to reduce costs this much? --- Talking about storage and fault tolerance again, why not discuss the actual probability of fragment loss in real environments? --- Replacing brute force with algorithms sounds good, but how does it perform in practice? This is a classic case of idealism being overly optimistic. --- A replication factor of 4 to 5 times is okay, at least it looks better than the IPFS approach. --- Decentralized storage is back again. Why do I always feel that these solutions ultimately rely on some key nodes? --- I agree that the algorithms are clever, but how many projects in the ecosystem actually use them?

View OriginalReply0