Data storage protocols keep the Internet afloat.

Becoming an integral part of the modern age, they ensure data is stored accurately and reliably — keeping its integrity intact, and enabling systems to exchange data smoothly and efficiently. 

Lacking such protocols would be akin to removing the very foundation of our digital world. Data would get lost. Communication would break down. The whole fabric of the Web would collapse within seconds.

Thus given the importance of such protocols in our everyday life, it is of top priority to ensure the computing ecosystem continues to operate like a well-oiled machine. 

Recently, the world has begun to pivot into more decentralized alternatives to cloud storage — given the concerning fragility of legacy systems today.

In this short article, we’ll explore the present landscape of storage protocols. Comparing both centralized and decentralized solutions alike, and giving you an unbiased perspective on the best alternative for you in 2024 and beyond.

‍

A Look Into Data Storage Protocols (Centralized vs Decentralized)

A data storage protocol is a set of rules and standards that dictate how data is stored, accessed, and managed within any computer system or network. It is the “operating code” behind the data storage machine.

Basically, it allows different devices & applications in the network to communicate and understand each other effectively.

Picture it as the book catalog in a library.

The catalog is the system that tells you where to find a specific book (data) within the library (the storage system.) With it, the library can define how books are organized, where books are located, and how you can go about borrowing one.

Without a catalog to follow, finding a specific book would be incredibly difficult and time-consuming. And in a similar light, a storage protocol is what allows a computer to know where to locate and how to use specific data.

Now, there are two types of data storage protocols: centralized and decentralized storage. Let’s define each, and their key differences.

Centralized storage, as the name suggests, stockpiles all the entry data in a single, central location — usually massive facilities known as “data centers.” Managed by a single entity, this model is designed to keep data readily accessed and maintained.

Decentralized storage, on the other hand, distributes data across multiple locations or “nodes” — spread across multiple regions worldwide — based on the premise of leveraging a network of devices that work in tandem to store your data. And, unlike centralized protocols, not jeopardize the entire system in case one of these nodes fails.

Let’s expand on the key distinctions between the two:

1. Data control, governance & security

As already covered, centralized storage consolidates data control and governance under a single entity. This centralized authority oversees the primary server, dictating access permissions, implementing data policies, and managing storage, backup, and security protocols. 

This aspect can facilitate management, since it allows admins to regulate data all in a single place. But on the flip side, it can wind up being quite risky since it introduces a single point of failure. In the scenario of a cyberattack, the entire dataset can be corrupted, compromised, or even lost.

Decentralized storage allocates data across a network of independent nodes, shifting control away from centralized authorities. Each node maintains ownership and management of its stored data, including access permissions and encryption.

As a result, decisions regarding data handling, security, and governance are typically reached through consensus among network participants or predetermined protocols — rather than a single power.

Ultimately this also implies greater security, since data is fragmented, encrypted, and distributed across multiple nodes, making it incorruptible against unauthorized entities to access or manipulate the data. 

No room for data breaches.

2. Data Accessibility & Availability

Centralized storage systems rely on a single central server for data accessibility. Users must connect to this server to access their files. If the central server experiences downtime or becomes unavailable, users won’t be able to access their data.

Instant accessibility is built on decentralized storage protocols by design. By distributing data across multiple nodes, users can access their information from any operational node within the network. Even if some nodes experience downtime, data remains readily accessible through others, guaranteeing high availability and resilience.

3. Costs

Centralized storage demands substantial upfront investments in dedicated hardware and infrastructure. Ongoing costs include server maintenance, upgrades, and backups.

Decentralized protocols can minimize upfront investment and be cost-effective for smaller deployments, since it optimizes unused capacity on multiple devices and resources can be allocated more efficiently.

Now, these are the three main differences between both storage protocols. But you might be wondering, what are some good examples of both models playing out in the modern world?

‍

Real-World Examples of Both Data Storage Protocols

To illustrate both types of storage protocols, let’s dive into one example for each: Amazon Web Services and Filecoin.

Amazon Web Services (AWS for short) currently operates as one of the biggest centralized data storage solutions in the marketplace — owning over a 31% market share. It’s a prime example of a centralized storage protocol since Amazon stores all user data in massive data centers around the world — and they charge a fee to the end user for management & maintenance.

In other words, Amazon orchestrates all the infrastructure and provides a robust and scalable platform where users can borrow computing power that is readily available. AWS as a whole offers a wide range of storage services, including S3 for object storage, EBS for block-level storage, EFS for file-based storage, and millions of users worldwide swear by it daily.

Admittedly, as you might imagine, AWS is susceptible to the same “single point of failure” dilemma that riddles most centralized storage protocols — trying their best to counteract this shortcoming by applying robust security measures. 

The aforementioned, in addition to the upfront investment required to preserve infrastructure, usually translates as higher services fees for the user.

Then there are decentralized protocols like Filecoin. 

A network built on the back of blockchain, which created a marketplace where individuals and organizations worldwide can access computing power and rent out unused storage space on their computers. In return, the hardware providers get rewarded with Filecoin (FIL) tokens, the native cryptocurrency of the platform.

Data is distributed across a vast network of nodes worldwide — deploying cryptographic proofs  and encryption to verify that data is stored correctly. 

All with the aim to empower the user, and create a more resilient, secure, and accessible platform for storing data — not reliant on a central authority. It’s an innovative solution inspired by the idea of DePINs, which offers a fresh perspective on the way we build and manage infrastructure.

Yet despite the many benefits FileCoin offers over centralized solutions, the average user still fails to embrace the call to decentralization in its totality. Why is this?

Part of it is exposure. The concept of decentralized storage just began to gain traction in early 2020. 

But more than just plain notoriety, it's also a matter of practical concerns.

Realizing a true decentralized protocol requires unprecedented cooperation among disparate global providers, each with its own interests. 

This complexity is compounded by user autonomy over infrastructure. While decentralized systems promise resilience, they also introduce security and compliance challenges due to data dispersion. 

Despite costs and inefficiencies, centralized cloud providers like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft maintain dominance due to their established track record and user familiarity.

But the time has come where decentralized solutions can actually match the performance of established storage giants.

‍

Introducing: Impossible Cloud Network

The Impossible Cloud Network (ICN for short) is a Web3 initiative that introduces a decentralized approach to cloud infrastructure. But the way it plans to go about differs from most decentralized alternatives standing today.

Impossible Cloud Network (ICN) will furthermore be a platform where Service Providers can offer Cloud Services, like object storage, to many customers worldwide. Impossible Cloud, the original Service Provider on the Impossible Cloud Network, started to successfully provide decentralized cloud storage solutions that are secure, efficient, and accessible.

With a growing network of hardware providers meeting real-world demand, the foundation of the Impossible Cloud Network (ICN) will now expand the suite of decentralized services available and be the first to offer a decentralized, multi-service cloud.

Most decentralized cloud solutions today are equipped to handle one service — be it storage, computing, networking — yet lack the architecture to offer all those services in one place.

ICN flips this notion on its head by offering the whole breadth of services — just like AWS — but bringing the decentralized twist to the picture. 

To get a clearer idea of how ICN works, we encourage you to read our recent article on the core feature of Impossible Cloud Network. 

We hope you enjoyed this holistic overview of the current storage protocols, their differences, and core functionalities.

If you're interested in deploying ICN for your storage needs, we encourage you to stay in the loop for future pieces about the network.

Thanks for reading.

‍