So, this is exactly the cat and mouse game I was referring to.
So you could just limit the traffic after installing.
A TOS that can’t be enforced is useless. Open source software can always be modded, including removing any anti-cheat measures. But even more, it’s an open protocol too, you could build your own node software that speaks Store and do whatever you like.
Furthermore, even if a technical solution could be found, that will only ensure a minimum acceptable speed. And won’t encourage any node operator to do more than that.
In the end there is no possible technical solution that won’t be worked around in one way or the other to deliver just the minimal amount of speed required, leading to slower downloads in general.
Nothing beats aligning incentives.
You know… A mic drop moment like that only works if it’s supported by an undeniable argument. Not just repeating one that has already been debunked and adding all caps.
Maybe it can be done to ensure a minimum level of service. But it is very clearly not a simple problem to solve and that result would still not be desirable. An aligned incentive automatically causes node operators to strive for the maximum level of service, which no technical solution could ever get to because that maximum is different for every setup/connection.
“Seeing that I don’t get paid for egress, I contacted my ISP and downgraded my connection and as it so happens, I got a plan where the upload bandwidth is exactly the minimum in the TOS + 10%”
Would Storj demand me to send a copy of the contract to prove it? Would Storj contact my ISP to confirm and I actually changed the plan and not just limited the bandwidth to Storj?
There are multiple ways to limit the bandwidth without touching the node software or even the VM it runs in. Honestly, altering the node software would be the most difficult way to do it.
Can you figure out a way to detect whether the bandwitdth is limited by my ISP or by myself (given that I can use the same exact method to do it)?
I think Anticheats is not the best comparison. Cheating destroys the fun in the game for the real players and this in turn hurts the sales of the game.
For Storj it doesn’t hurt other SNOs and also it doesn’t hurt Storj itself. It may hurt some customers. Additionally we are probably talking about a small group of SNOs which would limit their upload.
Now the big question is: Is it worth to sink a lot of dev resources into this if its only to fight a small group of SNOs to benefit a small group of customers? These customers are probably large and may move to the commercial network with the promise of higher download speeds.
Going back to my point - there is a very straightforward way that Storj could incentivize good upload performance - just pay a reasonable amount for egress!
The point that seems to be missed here is that Storj doesn’t necessarily need to pay SNOs in the same way that they structure customer-facing pricing.
the problem is… to do that anticheat… requires manpower to program, requires maintenance, requires cpu processing power too… who’s paying for that?.. storj?.. then they will need to take more cut of the revenue and you get less anyway
the payment structure… unfortunately needs to be aligned… else storj risks having to pay out of pocket should the situation not align… e.g. promising to pay storj operators $2 per TB stored regardless of egress, instead of $1.5 per TB + egress cost… while still maintaining that same customer-facing price… if the situation comes around that more data are stored and less egress happens… storj has to pay out of pocket… which then leads to us questioning why they draw on reserves… its just kicking the can down a different path
suffice to say… we are like workers working for a big firm… we are paid a certain amount of salary… the firm determines it… if the firm decides to change it because of extraneous circumstances (poor economy outlook, competition etc) , they change it… you don’t like the new salary… you find a better job maybe… or you stick around and hope the firm does better and rewards you for being loyal… (although job loyalty isn’t really a big thing nowadays)
It is impossible to detect if the limiting is done by the ISP (as normal part of operations to limit my connection bandwidth to what I paid for) and something that I would use to limit just the bandwidth of the node (using pretty much the same tools as the ISP would use).
Sure, I could give root access to the VM where my node runs and it would still be impossible to determine that. After all, I can limit the bandwidth on my router, on the hypervisor or, if the node ran on bare metal, on the switch port .
You’re contradicting your own point. Employees are rarely paid in proportion to the value they bring - an hourly wage is the same regardless of how much value those hours brought in.
Storj does not need to align them - after all, many cloud providers offer free ingress, despite the fact that they’re paying (in some way or another) for said ingress. They simply need to structure them in a way that is profitable, regardless of whether that is “aligned” or not. I’d honestly rather they pay a little less for storage if it means they pay more for egress.
As an example, a store might choose to offer free shipping, despite the fact that they obvious have to pay for that.
this is very bad idea, lot of storage client use are backups, so they can be never downloaded.
so much better to get for storing it more than getting bigger from nothing.
well i was thinking of something similiar to how audit is being run now… since it can only be proven when it is audited from external… otherwise we can’t prevent tampering from happening… and thats why i inferred there will be additional costs to bear on storj’s end.
mmm maybe my analogy is not correct… not as employees of a firm… but more like a gig economy?.. like how uber or food delivery services work?.. you aren’t really “hired” by the firm… you are self employed… with uber as the platform, earning whatever the rates is being laid out… then you choose to work or not to…
The problem with external audits of egress is that the code can be modified to do not throttle known auditors.
Even if we implement Distribute audits across storagenodes, it doesn’t help much - the software can be trained, which IPs/NodeIDs are auditors.
It also just a random value depending on auditors’ location, so it look like useless, but requires an additional dev efforts for nothing. The economic works better than that.
Also, the ToS say that the minimum egress bandwidth should be 5mbps and minimum ingress 25mbps (IIRC), so, I could limit my node to, say, 6mbps and 30mbps and not violate the ToS, whatever my real connection bandwidth is. I would not need to cheat any audist etc, just have the node limited to those speeds.
Cheating would only be needed if someone wanted to limit the banwidth even more.
And yet another problem is latency. There is no requirements for latency in ToS except for not failing audits, which have a timeout of 5 minutes. So if we had any tool that simply delays delivery of download requests by few seconds, most races would be lost “immediately”, with the node not having to do any work. Packet inspection tools could be made to do that. This is breaking ToS on a technicality, but would be quite undetectable, as it would be indistinguishable from a regular node which was not configured optimally.
well thought, that obvious things, doesn’t need any further discussion to take forum space.
Sorry for having a limited time as well, to endlessly debate.
While im NOT in a position to know the details about how it could be designed specifically.
i can say in general: that seems a check should be done from customer perspective, downloading file could make measure here.
How can the node know, which customer is measuring the performance?
So the node don’t know to whom keep the hypothetical cap, and to whom not.
It might be even as simple as that.
A customers audit or so called “Mystery Shopper”.
Summary
Im sure the company workers, will surely use any given excuse to evade proactivity, or adding to the “to do list”.
Which some are just silly obvious, like that here.
But im not payed tho to burn glucose to solve problems for storj inc. employees instead.
Or endlessly debate about course of solutions, that storj inc. don’t like.
But im finding this necessary sooner or later.
You need reinforce Your requires, if You make ones.
(A minimum resources like upstream)
And You need incentives for maximum
(the more You share, the more You can get $$$)
Only cost for storj inc, that it must play this mystery customer role.
or just partner with some customer like university for example, giving some free traffic
but wanting measures in return. I know it downloads 29 fastest parts from the 80.
Therefore the lowest from caped ones, may never been downloaded.
Thats some sign too.
Maybe the suspected capping nodes can be found by not winning the race at all over some time, or for too low wining ratio.
But i do know that You can design a solution, it just need work to figure out.
There, please don’t say “You can’t”, or “impossible”.
it’s a matter of need and will.
Maybe Storj inc. thinks, they don’t need it, that’s another subject.
i really don’t like the forum is drifting into constant repetition, only for “mine be the last word.”
I don’t think that’s how the discussion should take place.
If Ai were to read this, he could only conclude that it was written by beings with an extremely low cache memory.
The topic is exhausted, and 4-8 posts later a post appears, as if the discussion started from scratch.
Maybe, indeed, we should all get those nurallinks from Musk, I don’t know.
