S3, Drive, Dropbox, Spaces, B2, Box, several Object Storage solutions. Some cases storage was cheap, but the transfer was costly. Everything seemed costly for the simple use case of providing an end user 10GB monthly upload + ~50GB bandwidth at low cost.
A vps with additional storage seemed to be the ~better~ most feasible solution to me.
This sounds like a terrific thing to host on a vps.
Storage is already free for the average user. 15GB with Google is enough. If you want more, the option is there and not that expensive. $2/mo for 100GB. I see no reason why a consumer would switch to my lesser-known service to save $1/mo. $1 is nothing. So my market would be users that store a lot of data. In that case, $10/mo for 1TB doesn't seem all that bad. Anymore than 1TB, customers probably have a bit of technical knowledge and may aswell store it themselves.
This market is already extremely saturated. Every single big tech name has a part of it.
Just make sure your provider has backup and redundancy in place for the data storage.
Imagine waking up to total loss of data for all of your customers. Ouch!
https://www.hetzner.com/cloud?country=us
I don't know how competitive their prices are, but I like their easy to use interface which is complemented by and also easy to use API.
Adding a 7-day automatic backup history is just a matter of about two clicks, and the additional costs seem reasonable to me.
That's roughly $5/month for 1TB, which probably beats doing this on a VPS.
Disclaimer: i have no direct experience with wasabi, nor am i affiliated with them at all.
One thing I like about send.firefox.com is it's a one time download, and then the URL is denied to have ever existed. CryptSend sounds like you could share the URL with multiple destinations; multiple downloads.
> For the most reliable operation, it’s best to keep your file under 1GB
Pro: doesn't upload to server and preserves anonymity. Con: slower than non-anonymous.
Here's a simple code example of a v2 onion file server using external Tor process w/ no auth: https://github.com/cretz/bine#example. This is essentially what onionshare does: https://github.com/micahflee/onionshare.
Also they do call out that URL fragments get stored in browser history which is a big risk, but they should also mention that many browsers automatically "sync" history across devices (so keys will get sent to a cloud if you aren't using incognito/private browsing).
It's open source too.
Cryptsend was created as a result of my company having to share large amounts of medical data with our clients. We couldn't find an easy and secure solution, so we sat down and created cryptsend. Our codebase is currently in alpha stages so any audits/improvements/security vulns you find would be really appreciated!
If you are encrypting the files server side, then that is NOT E2E encryption.
There is a file called cipher.js with encrypt and decrypt functions https://github.com/countable-web/cryptsend/blob/develop/publ...
However, the `Get folder link` does not work. Is it deactivated for now ?
Based on their calculations, if you plan on storing files for more 16 days, it will be marginally cheaper than S3, but if you plan on keeping files around longer than 90 days, it is ~5x cheaper than S3.
This is in stark contrast to, for example, AWS S3. From the FAQ [0]:
> Amazon S3 [is] designed to provide 99.999999999% durability of objects over a given year. This durability level corresponds to an average annual expected loss of 0.000000001% of objects. For example, if you store 10,000,000 objects with Amazon S3, you can on average expect to incur a loss of a single object once every 10,000 years.
> Amazon S3 ... storage classes redundantly store your objects on multiple devices across a minimum of three Availability Zones (AZs) in an Amazon S3 Region before returning SUCCESS.
In AWS parlance, an AZ is a physical data center, and they're built far enough apart so a fire, flood or tornado will not affect all of them.
There's a reason S3 (and similar) cost so much more than "hard drive attached to a server" storage. If you don't need the durability than of course it is overpriced -- but on the other hand, if you try to provide that level of durability yourself you'll quickly see it's a bargain.
[0] https://aws.amazon.com/s3/faqs/#Durability_.26_Data_Protecti...
In fact, I don't know where AWS nor Hetzner stores the 'disk' of the VPS or even the backups. And while those are undoubtedly essential attributes for enterprise-level services, I think especially for side projects the usability of the service is quite relevant.