←back to thread

816 points tosh | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
netsec_burn ◴[] No.41276529[source]
I've used wormhole once to move a 70 GB file. Couldn't possibly do that before. And yes, I know I used the bandwidth of the relay server, I donated to Debian immediately afterwards (they run the relay for the version in the apt package).
replies(3): >>41276736 #>>41276769 #>>41277271 #
lotharrr ◴[] No.41276769[source]
(magic-wormhole author here)

Thanks for making a donation!

I run the relay server, but the Debian maintainer agreed to bake an alternate hostname into the packaged versions (a CNAME for the same address that the upstream git code uses), so we could change it easily if the cost ever got to be a burden. It hasn't been a problem so far, it moves 10-15 TB per month, but shares a bandwidth pool with other servers I'm renting anyways, so I've only ever had to pay an overage charge once. And TBH if someone made a donation to me, I'd just send it off to Debian anyways.

Every once in a while, somebody moves half a terabyte through it, and then I think I should either move to a slower-but-flat-rate provider, or implement some better rate-limiting code, or finally implement the protocol extension where clients state up front how much data they're going to transfer, and the server can say no. But so far it's never climbed the priority ranking high enough to take action on.

Thanks for using magic wormhole!

replies(4): >>41276923 #>>41276954 #>>41277403 #>>41281702 #
password4321 ◴[] No.41276954[source]
> move to a slower-but-flat-rate provider

As I'm sure you're aware: https://www.scaleway.com/en/stardust-instances/ "up to 100Mbps" for $4/month

replies(3): >>41277059 #>>41277925 #>>41280603 #
lysace ◴[] No.41277059[source]
32.4 TB for $4, or approximately 700 times cheaper than AWS. Neat.
replies(2): >>41277570 #>>41280408 #
seinecle ◴[] No.41277570[source]
Bare metal love
replies(1): >>41279100 #
gruez ◴[] No.41279100[source]
It's clearly a VPS, not bare metal.
replies(1): >>41279178 #
lysace ◴[] No.41279178[source]
I wonder what it would take for AWS to lower their outbound BW pricing to something that's not insane.

I'm beginning to think that the only feasible solution is changing the law.

replies(3): >>41279398 #>>41279412 #>>41279472 #
freeopinion ◴[] No.41279472[source]
I'm suffering from fatigue from all the political commercials in which every single Democrat apparently single-handedly reduced the price of insulin. As if government-mandated pricing were a good thing.

If something is overpriced, somebody should jump in and take advantage of a business opportunity. If nobody is jumping in, perhaps the item is not overpriced. Or perhaps there is some systemic issue preventing willing competitors from jumping in. Imagine if somebody tackled the real issue and it unclogged the plumbing for producers of all sorts of medicine beside insulin at the same time.

If a government mandates the sale of an item below the cost of production, they drive out all producers and that product disappears from the market. That is, unless they create some government subsidy or other graft to compensate the government-appointed winners. Any way you slice it, it is a recipe for disaster.

If parties are allowed to compete fairly with each other, somebody will offer a cheaper price. This is already the case with AWS. Consumers may decide that the cheaper product is somehow inferior, but that is not a problem that lawmakers should interfere in.

replies(3): >>41279922 #>>41280161 #>>41281767 #
1. ekianjo ◴[] No.41280161{3}[source]
> If something is overpriced, somebody should jump in and take advantage of a business opportunity

insulin is off patent. anyone can in theory manufacture it, but the ROI is just not worth it even at the current prices. Manufacturing it is not easy, there are humongous amounts of regulations, you will probably need to do a couple of clinical trials too... so you end up with an oligopoly that are incumbents that nobody wants to challenge, and prices that are all aligned.

replies(2): >>41280516 #>>41284254 #
2. tekknik ◴[] No.41280516[source]
interesting. so the solution is to pile on more regulation yes? if a little is garbage and destroys the system then more must be better right?
3. drowsspa ◴[] No.41284254[source]
Is it, though? Even a poor country like Brazil can afford to give out insulin for free