This
combined with this:
Don’t exactly sit well together. Even Bright Silence has indicated he has concerns that over time the commercial network is going to take over.
And Storj was soooo open about how the Commercial Network had been progressing… Nor has this been raised as an issue by Storj previously In fact we were reassured that the Commercial Network would not impact us and now we find out otherwise. These are exactly the reasons I would never give Storj any resources for free.
I don’t think anyone is asking for you to give Storj anything for free. I realize there is some philosophy debates going on here about people’s time and costs associated with running a node, but in the end Storj is paying out tokens to node operators and node operators are earning for their node’s usage. Whether or not the financials work in your situation is a case by case basis. With 22k nodes, it seems to be effectively working for a lot of operators.
Test network nodes remain unpaid do they not?
I’m not going to split hairs with you penfold. You’re unhappy, I get it.
So, I actually expected a cut to come - just not in this manner and degree. Again, my biggest annoyance is Storj’s communication. In fact in a private chat between SNO’s I said a cut was coming just a few days ago. But you could have done far better around communication. Your message remains confused and inconsistent and you don’t discuss things that are relevant. Such as the Commercial network. I am therefore not surprised some think the public network is on the way out.
There should be a official statement about the commercial! As already mentioned, Storj said commercial would not impact , but now it does, what is the official statement?
It has not been deleted, please check again.
What could help throw a bone to SNOs is if they just stopped new node signups or something like that, so that existing nodes can be utilized more - I don’t get paid for empty TBs, and it doesn’t save me any costs to have a node only half-full. If my nodes were actually full, then I would still make a healthy amount of money.
That, or increase uptime requirements, or reward higher uptime. If nodes have better uptime, you don’t need to distribute the chunks to as many nodes to maintain availability.
Yes, the communication is really subpar to the expectations by far. Normally in a situation like this one could strongly suggest a fork. However, maybe the management might be able to intervene and somehow be able to save the situation, who knows. :- )
Yeah, the rate going down would not be a problem if t he traffic went up. Instead, after the first rate cuts, the traffic did not go up and my node even shrank by something like 8TB due to the shutdown of two test satellites.
Nodes having slightly different reputation because of uptime would be OK, but stricter uptime requirements would really depend. While my server run reliably I may still need to shut it down for a couple of hours to blow the dust out and also, I sometimes cannot quickly react to problems - maybe I’m sleeping, travelling somewhere etc. Unlike a company, I do not have employees to look after my servers, it’s either me or nobody.
As long as the uptime requirement took into account long term uptime and not just “no more than 5 hours of downtime” I would probably be OK with it. I have big UPSs, two internet connections etc, but there are times when the node is unattended.
Well its one way to assist global warming reduction by reducing node numbers.
On this, its still a demand and supply paradigm ya?.. and if the fortunate situation of a petabyte customer comes knocking… there are always means to manage… it takes time for a petabyte customer to upload… they can’t just dump it all in 1 day anyway… no bandwidth allows that… and given the turn around time, storj could always launch incentives to attract new storage node to soak up the demand eventually
just a reference, for anyone who is saying that the cut in egress payment affects them badly… take a look at mine… sept payout… probably not even noticeable difference for any of my payouts after the change…
my egress is unlimited, if you are wondering whether i capped my egress.
the situation for different nodes differs, and while it may be unfavorable to some… its not gonna make a dent in mine at least…
the main point in this announcement is to not do this:
“Not anticipate” and “foreseeable” are vague enough as to make the statement meaningless.
They’ll do what they need to do, and if they need to further reduce payouts in a month then that’s what they’ll do.
Simply this.
The adjustments are painful, but they are necessary to make the whole thing profitable.
BUT what makes me sad is the foreseeable Future of the Public Network: I think (and thats only an opinion) is, Storj has Invented the new Network for datacenters as vehicle to play the two Networks out together and to lower the costs for them.
This will be the end of the public network in the Long run i think. The Arguments of certification etc. are Advanced, all That could be achieved with the Public Network if they Want to Focus on That. But Decentralization is to expensive, DC Network is way cheaper 
JustMy2Cents
Edit: Thats Not an accusation, thats simply „Economy of scale“.
This is requirements from the customers, who do not want to store on the public Storj network because of lack of SOC2 certification. Thus - we implemented this, it will costs more for such customers, but otherwise we would not have them at all.
I do not think that the public network could vanish, not everyone wants a more expensive SOC2-compliance, there are plenty of customers who just want a better price, decentralization, end-to-end encryption, CDN-like behavior (the speed would be the same from any place in the world), global availability and s3-compatibility.
Thats the official Argumentation, and thats quite ok.
But the DC-Nodes are cheaper for Storj, why should they Not Move the whole Network?
Nevertheless its a optimal threat to lower the SNO-Payment-Rates.
This is Not an accusation, i can understand this and its logical decision. But it makes me sad about the idea of the Network and the private SNO, thats all.
They are cost nothing as a public ones. I did not get what do you mean?
The certification itself is costly, so if we would to consider that, then SOC2-complience nodes will costs more, thus it costs more for the customers. There are also complications about reliability (they are in a few datacenters), so it requires development to make it not less reliable as a public one. However, the public one will be always superior in the context of distribution. So always trade-offs, the public network will have own customers, the SOC2 - own.
Or please elaborate.
Specifically:
- The commercial node operators have a significantly different cost structure. Because of the scale at which they operate they typically accept much lower payout rates because of the efficiency of their operations. But due to the removal of the /24 restriction on these data sets the operators can still have meaningful earnings despite receiving payout rates that are lower than the public network.
I take it as the commercial node operators willing to accept lower payouts than the public node operators. As such, the commercial nodes would be cheaper for Storj even if Storj did not charge the SOC2 customers more.
Unless, of course, the commercial node operators now get more than the proposed rates for the public node operators.
But how many customers actually use the native uplink or run their own gateways instead of using the edge services which remove the encryption aspect and partially remove the decentralization aspect.
