Decentralized storage has always faced a longstanding problem: relying on full replication to ensure reliability is too costly. Once scaled up, the costs become unmanageable.
Walrus's approach is different. It uses erasure coding to split data into multiple fragments, which are then distributed across different nodes. As long as the number of fragments reaches the recovery threshold, the original data can be reconstructed at any time. This sounds simple, but the underlying logic is actually very pragmatic.
Node downtime is normal, not an exception. Instead of assuming all nodes are always online, it’s more realistic to accept that some nodes may fail—this is built into the system design. Erasure coding is specifically designed for such imperfect network environments, using mathematical redundancy to replace physical redundancy. What’s the result? Security remains intact, recoverability is guaranteed, and storage costs are significantly reduced. This cost structure provides a real foundation for long-term operation of 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.
21 Likes
Reward
21
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
SatoshiHeir
· 01-11 05:58
It should be pointed out that the mathematical logic of erasure coding was proposed as early as 1960; Walrus is just applying it to distributed storage. Based on the following evidence—actual performance data of Reed-Solomon coding in P2P networks—I have to say that this thing doesn't solve any truly innovative problems, but rather focuses on cost optimization at the engineering level. Clearly, the real breakthrough should be in the design of consensus mechanisms, not in storage coding.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidationWatcher
· 01-08 09:56
ngl walrus actually gets it... been burned too many times watching projects pretend their infrastructure is bulletproof when it's not. erasure coding isn't flashy but it's honest—assumes nodes WILL fail instead of praying they won't. that's the mindset that keeps collateral ratios healthy, if you know what i mean.
Reply0
MoodFollowsPrice
· 01-08 09:54
Someone finally explained this clearly; erasure coding should have been used long ago.
View OriginalReply0
hodl_therapist
· 01-08 09:51
Erasure coding is indeed clever; finally, someone has figured out the cost issue.
View OriginalReply0
0xTherapist
· 01-08 09:44
Erasure coding should have been popularized long ago. I really don't understand why so many projects previously insisted on full backups... Walrus's approach is about recognizing reality. If costs can be reduced this much, who wouldn't want that?
Decentralized storage has always faced a longstanding problem: relying on full replication to ensure reliability is too costly. Once scaled up, the costs become unmanageable.
Walrus's approach is different. It uses erasure coding to split data into multiple fragments, which are then distributed across different nodes. As long as the number of fragments reaches the recovery threshold, the original data can be reconstructed at any time. This sounds simple, but the underlying logic is actually very pragmatic.
Node downtime is normal, not an exception. Instead of assuming all nodes are always online, it’s more realistic to accept that some nodes may fail—this is built into the system design. Erasure coding is specifically designed for such imperfect network environments, using mathematical redundancy to replace physical redundancy. What’s the result? Security remains intact, recoverability is guaranteed, and storage costs are significantly reduced. This cost structure provides a real foundation for long-term operation of decentralized storage.