Storage proceeding

That way it would cause tremendous punishment on all responsible farmers. Total socialization of risk (for no payback to those who would be paying for it).

At least in the less terrible version data owner would have to GET the chunks (and pay for that).

What is the connection between the question (loss of all chunk replicas) and your “solution” (prevention of non-targeted data corruption)?

Spoken like a true uploader! Farmers already look likely to get screwed and you’re proposing yet another non-paying workload for them.

Well, those who read this post below may be already convinced that the level of protection is good enough
Hilariously, that topic was started by Seneca who was a capitalist back then (quote: “I can imagine rich/corporate users would be willing to pay for more redundancy” - whereas now he’s arguing the cost should of added protection for “the rich” should be paid by the farmers :slight_smile: ) and David already addressed those questions by posting multiple comments.