Well the fork should have served a lesson to Innosilicon. It’s unfortunate that their customers were caught in the cross-fire. They would do well to think twice before buying anything from Innosilliocn due to its shady practices.
I hope you are joking. If anything this is a lesson showing us the future viability of Sia. Nebulous was looking for any excuse for this fork. First Bitmain was the bad guy, then it was Innosilicon. Its no coincidence that the "attack on the network" reached its crescendo as soon as Obelisk shipped out all of batch one. If you are going to call Innosilicon shady, I think you have to do the same in regards to Obelisks business practices.
Now we have the company's miners all mining on their centralized pool.
Lets see Inno self-mines and owns 45% of the network? Not shady?
Obelisk Tech makes these miner, but forgoes the 20% it was supposed run on their own, and further more decides not to manufacture any more iterations? Shady?
Leave the viability of Sia Storage aside, its got nothing to do with miners.
You are crazy if you think they aren't mining this themselves.
One address with 130 workers: https://siamining.com/addresses/572ccd09746e4b82666bb1c947bb4aef52f655e0e96ddb7c14c08b10165d68efbc7b63c8490f
Another with 67 workers: https://mining.luxor.tech/miners/SC/06cc9f9196afb1a1efa21f72160d508f0cc192b581770fde57420cab795a2913fb4e1c85aa30
Another with 48 workers: https://mining.luxor.tech/miners/SC/a152ee47ef01407055494ed24b4af3f1caa73a463550e5ce78e3420a661dbe5887af1242c18a
39 workers: https://mining.luxor.tech/miners/SC/3ca729e03bcad696a2500316be194349069ee2823a7e953163f431e8d2d1a0f1d7a075315d1e
comparing the dev mining to the asic company dumpers is truely apples to oranges.
