That’s not exactly a problem if you plan ahead and start vetting nodes before, and that’s what I was already suggesting for people wanting to extend their home nodes in the future. Have a bunch of .5TB nodes vetting, then migrate to new drives as they show up. Except at a bigger scale.
I believe this is only the case because there’s almost zero growth in customer demand. It’s easy to balance something that doesn’t really change anyway.
How so?
Thank you for treating me with respect, I will answer in kind.
You clearly don’t know even basics of economy. If the scale is big enough, solutions with smaller margins will give you more profit.
I gave Hetzner numbers to prove that even off-the-shelf hardware can give profit with the current Storj incentive structure. You don’t need single-purpose hardware for that.
You clearly forgot the premise of my estimates: Storj growing a few orders of magnitude. Besides, Hetzner already has these drives, otherwise they wouldn’t be offering their SX series on demand. It would be just their choice to run storage nodes on them while waiting for regular customers.
Again, I used Hetzner’s numbers to show that even with the costs of maintaining a proper data center, there would be profit with the current incentive structure. Maybe it will be smaller per-terabyte than your home NAS, but they can push the scale far more than you can with a home NAS.
Actually, the numbers I gave is dedicated bare metal hardware. There’s no overselling in those numbers. They no longer care whether this disk space is used or not, because you control every single raw sector of those hard drives.
I thought you said Chia is not comparable enough to Storj?
As long as the ROI for them will be better than from regular customers, that’s enough. The Hetzner numbers show it would be. What your ROI is—it does not matter.