That was the reason why I wrote it in the first place.
You wrote a wall of text without much substance.
I tried to make you aware of this by asking why you would mix that topic into it.
I do not agree with you but you may have your opinion. Nevertheless, I hope you got my point with regard to the held amount and that I answered your question.
Not sure to be honest. I think you think, that STORJ somehow profits from the held back amount and because of that real costs are lower.
I on the other hand offered an example (edited post here Announcement: Changes to node payout rates as of December 1st 2023 (Open for comment) - #182 by IsThisOn) of why I think the held back amount is in fact way too small and does not even cover the costs.
No I just put into doubt the calculations provided by the company representative based on my current knowledge with a hope of receiving additional information from her/him.
1 Like
Got it! Thanks
So what additional numbers do you hope to get from them?
He offered you the 2.7 factor. Your response seemed like you did not believe or understand that number. Are you seriously doubting the 2,7 factor?
Man, taking into account info provided by @peter_linder here, now I am starting to doubt both, not only 1.50 but also 2.7 but to be honest not sure how seriously, probably not much, however as for 1.5 I decided to ask the company representative, and you, what do you think about this jazz?
1 Like
Interesting.
I think if STORJ would lie about the 2,7 that would be pretty strange. That would mean they lie about the 80 pieces on the webpage. That is what the sell to customers. So by giving them the benefit of the doubt, I think this could also be a statistics bug? But yeah, I donât know either, thanks for bringing that up.
Itâs not really possible due to how sparse audits are. 5% is not the correct number though. Itâs tuned now to allow up to 2% loss to survive. Below 4% is guaranteed to get you disqualified and anything between 2% and 4% you can survive if youâre lucky. Due to the sparse sampling it canât really be lowered much and doesnât have to be either. The network can easily deal with nodes having these amounts of data loss. And like you said, in cases where loss is bigger that HDD is likely gone soon anyway. So no real need to change things.
4 Likes
Yeah, for simplicity sake, I left out the lottery part. The 5% would only be true if 100% of the data would be audited.
There was a calculation from the devs floating around in the forum some time ago.
Do you mean above?
I did, yes. My bad.
Yes, it was on the topic where @thepaul and I exchanged ideas, simulations and data prior to the retuning of the audit score and allowed limits. In a feature suggestion topic I started. Itâs a long thread though, but for reference: Tuning audit scoring
2 Likes
Sorry, the purpose of my text was not to cast doubt on Storj, just the fact that the expansion factor in reality is lower than 2,7. It can be tuned by setting repair worker settings i would imagine.
What Iâm saying is that the expansion rate of 80/29 is a simplification.
As far as I know then indeed there are 110 pieces created, when 80 have been uploaded the transfer is considered finished. Nothing wrong here.
As time goes by, pieces are lost (i would imagine slightly faster at first, then somewhat slower as the number decreases) and when the online number reaches like 50-55 or so, 29 of them are downloaded, expanded into 110 pieces and uploaded again until around 80 are finished.
So the real number of stored (and therefore paid for pieces) are between 50-55 and 80 for any given segment.
3 Likes
Yeah, absolutely. I was not taking your words in that way. I was referring to $1.5 by myself and was wondering if that number has a real basis. It could turn out (re 2.7) and appear like that just only because of @IsThisOn.
Well, I think the company is interesting. I somehow got to like it due to several reasons. What I started not to like about this company is a kind of ⌠I do not know how to say it ⌠a double bottom. I sometimes think that the company thinks that the reliability is this, carbon footprint is this and something else is this but in reality those things are very different. Usually it is better for the company if there is no such a thing, I mean no double bottom. If there is, it sets the whole company operations on some artificial ground. Also the pricing strategy is one of the most important things around like a kind of a backbone thus I am reading this thread. I have to admit that I just do not quite understand this strategy, however, as it is very hard to make a judgement on those things without spending substantial amount of time understanding environmental and operational factors I kind of keep myself as quiet as it is only possible.
I do not know if you saw this thread by @syncamide and @Willie and Co. and their Manifesto (link). I cant say that I am associating myself with every single line and every single word but I really like how those things have been explained there and I am also impressed by the way how they are handling things so far (I would like to underline so far). To be honest, I joined the network mostly inspired by @Th3Vanâs rig so I have to say that this announcement was a bit disappointing, like you know ⌠the situation ⌠you coming here to have some fun and what ⌠you finding yourself with ⌠metadata oriented file system on every side. {EDIT} I just make the edit and add a ⌠:- ).
2 Likes
Agree. I think the community, the tech, and the cult are very interesting to watch.
I also donât like how they communicated the payout changes.
It does not look great if a company thinks it needs to cut corners on a very small pending point while being nebulous with the other spending.
But to be fair, from a math standpoint it was always clear from the beginning that around 2$ would be the right amount. And that was with the old prices of the competition. I think there have to be further price cuts to offer an attractive product to customers. We have to just wait and see.
Will there be price cuts for customers? Which means further price cuts for SNO.
Will S3 be phased out? Are customers ready to switch to native?
Will there be network growth with the current pricing?
I agree, when I first read the announcement, t came off as âwe dropped the rates, but not enough of you left, so we are dropping them again, maybe youâll get the hint nowâ
3 Likes
Yeah, as for the communication strategy, it is one of the worst I have ever seen, how can you tell your major stakeholders, âdo not buy anythingâ, or something like this was written the previous time, really how long the credit line extension. :- )
I donât think I can agree with you.
The way I see it, they have gone out of their way to explain the rationale for the drops. I understand many people may not be vey happy but I always got the impression that they do try their best to treat SNOs with respect and keep them âin the loopâ insofar as is reasonable and practical.
I would hazard a guess that they devote a considerable amount of man-hours (am I still allowed to use that expression?) communicating with and placating the SNO community and have always remained unfailingly polite and professional, even when attacked in some rather excessive ways.
But anyway, thatâs just my point of view.
6 Likes
I take your point. I just almost do not participate in all those meetings. I was referring to the last two price announcements expressed on this forum explicitly. Also to what I called âdouble bottomâ and âoperations taking place on some artificial groundâ.
1 Like
I agree. Itâs in part the curse of open communication. If you open the door to dialogue and communication, it will never be enough for some. And you trigger a lot of negative responses over the course of that dialogue. While some other companies would just announced âThis is what itâs going to beâ and not respond to the feedback at all. People so easily forget that we were looking at proposed storage payouts between $0.75-1.00 not too long ago.
3 Likes
Yes, twitter comes to mind.