Thanks for your question. As I understand it currently the relation is like this that the first few months I am providing a service not for $1.5 but for 25% of that, later for 50% and 75% respectively, in month 10-15 100% of my earnings is being transferred however after month 16 50% of held amount is deferred into infinity. How do you see this fact if I may ask in relation to provided calculations by the company representative? Do you see any shortcomings in my current understanding? And maybe the competition is lowering prices however in the last email from Storj the CEO is stating that Storj is 10 times cheaper. And indeed IMO this is the new pricing strategy imposed in two steps. I am sorry, I can not commit enough time to do all analysis of the surrounding nor I do have access to company’s internal data. I just asked some questions to company’s representative with a hope of receiving some replies in relation to my doubts. I do not want to take any sides in this particular discussion.
I just showed this as an example, because I had actually experienced that and the cluster size was 64K (this happened way before Storj was a thing).
You can have multiple bad sectors though. Or the bad sector could develop in an even worse place if that is possible.
Also, I don’t know the size distribution of the pieces, maybe 64KB clusters would not waste too much space.
Assuming there ingress does not slow down or stop.
@IsThisOn Looking forward to hearing from you.
The withholding model is as follows:
Months 1-3: 75% of Storage Node revenue is withheld, 25% is paid to the Storage Node Operator
Months 4-6: 50% of Storage Node revenue is withheld, 50% is paid to the Storage Node Operator
Months 7-9: 25% of Storage Node revenue is withheld, 75% is paid to the Storage Node Operator
Months 10-15: 100% of Storage Node revenue is paid to the storage node operator
Month 16: 50% of total withholdings are returned to Storage Node Operator, with the remaining 50% held until the node gracefully exits the network
Reference
I do not know if this is stupid or not, please do not force me to make comments like that. I was referring to the statement presented by the company representative with reference to the numbers provided by him/her and to your question addressed to me. As I understand the renumeration strategy, those statements by the company representative may not have a basis with a view of the held amount, but I might be wrong. Nevertheless, even I do not have access to internal data I hope to receive some comments on this matter from the author. Anyway, lets not make unnecessary noise.
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.
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.
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?
It’s not really possible due to how sparse audits are. 5% is not the correct number though. It’s 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 you’re lucky. Due to the sparse sampling it can’t really be lowered much and doesn’t 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.
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. It’s a long thread though, but for reference: Tuning audit scoring
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 I’m 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.
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 @Th3Van’s 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 … :- ).
I agree, when I first read the announcement, t came off as “we dropped the rates, but not enough of you left, so we are dropping them again, maybe you’ll get the hint now”
Yeah, as for the communication strategy, it is one of the worst I have ever seen, how can you tell your major stakeholders, “do not buy anything”, or something like this was written the previous time, really how long the credit line extension. :- )
I don’t 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 “in the loop” 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, that’s just my point of view.
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 “double bottom” and “operations taking place on some artificial ground”.
I agree. It’s 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 “This is what it’s going to be” 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.
Yes, twitter comes to mind.
I think you’ll find it’s “X” 