@felipekazuto

🖥️ Could Netflix use Walrus? 🖥️ I like the idea that everything being built on Web 3 will be useful in our daily lives, and that most people around the world will utilize the innovations we see. One of the best projects for this technology adoption, in my opinion, is Walrus Protocol. With this in mind, I'll be writing a series of posts analyzing areas and services where Walrus could be used in our daily lives. The first is the world's largest streaming service, Netflix We'll analyze whether Walrus could, technically and economically, replace or complement a streaming infrastructure like Netflix's. ⚙️ Netflix and its current model ⚙️ Netflix isn't just a video company. It's a global streaming infrastructure, with: 🗃️ Thousands of TBs (petabytes) of video. 🌍 Global delivery with minimal latency (regional CDNs, ISP caching). 📈 Support for millions of simultaneous accesses. 🔁 On-demand access in any quality (HD, 4K, HDR, etc.). 💰 Optimized storage and delivery with cutting-edge engineering (Open Connect). Now let's compare this to what Walrus offers. 📦 Raw Storage: Can Walrus Handle It? 📦 ✅ Yes, in terms of pure file storage, Walrus has the theoretical capacity to support tens or hundreds of petabytes because: - It is infinitely scalable horizontally (more nodes = more space). - It uses efficient coding (Red Stuff) with self-healing capabilities. - It already stores over 800 TB even in its initial phase. ⚠️ However, to function as Netflix's main database, it would require: - A massive pool of tens of thousands of nodes. - Economic incentives compatible with large-scale storage and frequent access. 📡 On-Demand Delivery and Streaming: Is Walrus Good for You? 📡 Not Completely... Yet Walrus was designed as a storage network, not a CDN (Content Delivery Network). This means: - Walrus isn't yet optimized enough to handle streaming at Netflix's current demand - Walrus doesn't have region-based caching - It supports real-time downloads, but low latency isn't guaranteed yet - Massive simultaneous data reads are possible with planning and some upgrades Walrus itself recommends using hybrid storage, where: - Videos can be stored on Walrus permanently or as a reliable backup. - Content can be mirrored on CDNs for instant delivery. 💸 Cost: Is it worth it for Netflix? 💸 ✅ Yes, as a backup or cold storage. Walrus can offer a much lower cost than Netflix's current model for: - Storing master versions of movies and series. - Saving localized versions (dubbed/subtitled) that aren't frequently accessed. - Archiving old catalogs. ❌ However, it's not worth it for edge delivery (direct end-user access), where latency and performance are essential. 🚀 Future: Could it become viable? 🚀 Yes, with specific improvements, Walrus could one day compete as a streaming backbone: - Optimized geographic deployments (CDN-aware sliver placement). - Direct asynchronous streaming relay from nearby nodes. - Voluntary caching in ISPs or regions via specific staking. - Integration with players that support progressive buffering directly from the encoded blob. - Partnership with delivery services (such as IPFS gateways or Akash/decentralized CDN). In short, yes, Walrus could currently be used by Netflix or similar services, but for lower-demand functions. To become the primary storage service, it would need much larger storage than currently available (many more nodes/validators) and some upgrades or partnerships to optimize latency and support massive simultaneous streaming. But it's still a huge victory for Walrus to be able to support part (even if small) of the demand for a service as big as Netflix in such a short time, which means it's only a matter of time before it's ready to do great things like supporting giant streaming services.

0 reply

2 recasts

3 reactions