For Storage Nodes
Disqualify Stray Nodes
The new downtime tracking system is based on audits. It will not work for storage nodes that are storing 0 pieces. We have implemented a new disqualification system for stray nodes that haven’t been seen for more than 30 days.
Storage Node Dashboard API
For Customers
Gateway-mt Beta
i have not seen this error in the past latest version win 10 pro installer 2021-02-01T08:19:29.387-0500 ERROR console:endpoint failed to encode json response {“error”: “payouts console web error: json: unsupported value: +Inf”, “errorVerbose”: “payouts console web error: json: unsupported value: +Inf\n\tstorj.io/storj/storagenode/console/consoleapi.(*StorageNode).EstimatedPayout:132\n\tnet/http.HandlerFunc.ServeHTTP:2042\n\tgithub.com/gorilla/mux.(*Router).ServeHTTP:210\n\tnet/http.serverHandler.ServeHTTP:2843\n\tnet/http.(*conn).serve:1925”}
in this version i can’t check per satellite audits
Problem is the payout estimation. The dashboard takes the current earnings and estimates how much you will get in this month. On the first day of the month this contains a division by 0… Now we have the second day and the calculation should work again. We have a month to fix that estimation bug.
A division by 0 returning +inf… Weird, pretty sure mathematicians would take issue with that.
Too bad there is no “claim payout for this month” button 
The mathematical limit of that goes to +inf, so it’s not way off, just off. 
Actually, maybe it’s smarter to return +inf than open a black, hole, what do you say? 
You can use a L2 zkSync 
There is claim payout for this month, called “Withdraw”
But it will allow to withdraw only what your node actually earned, not the estimated.
I didn’t know opening a black hole from code was an option? 
Anyway, the limit goes -inf if approached from the other end. And since there can’t be concepts more opposite than +inf and -inf, I’d say mathematicians are right when the say there is no answer.
Furthermore x/x doesn’t approach anything. It’s just 1. So does that mean 0/0=1? it does not, look it up
If it does, I can make a division by 0 equal any number. How about 12? 12x/x=12, done!
And what would that mean for the theory that a division by 0 equals any kind of infinity?
Unless of course we’re talking about a Riemann sphere, in which case infinity is unsigned, like 0, because the numbers wrap around from positive to negative there, like at 0.
I apologize for the deviation though, as I don’t think this is generated by code written by Storj Labs to begin with, but rather a quirk of the underlying language/packages used. So it’s not like it’s something they can “fix” and we could argue about whether it should be fixed to begin with. Math and standards say it should return either an error or a NaN value though.
Wouldn’t be good for the Storj value if someone suddenly had infinite STORJ though
Right, right, you’re right, the two limits diverge, I wasn’t thinking clearly. The only thing to happen is a black hole.
It’s always an option, that’s why compiler has sanity checks.
Don’t worry. I would be that person. You know you can trust me
i\m in full agreement with Brahma Gupta\s argument that dividing by zero has to give infinity.
ofc that could just be nothing infinitely accurate… but still infinite.
tho one could also argue that zero is infinite due to it being a placeholder and not a number, so one is in a sense dividing with nothing which is the infinite… so… well >D where was i
It is correct that dividing by zero gives inifinity, but there’s two infinities, one is negative, the other is positive, it is impossible to determine which one it would be in this case, it is an “indeterminate form”. You would need to do something to the number to change it to a known form, i.e. one that you can use to calculate the result, but all we have is a simple fraction, which is too simple, or at least that’s a far as I remember, BrightSilence can correct me.
more than two actually, as proven by galileo\s paradox.
As far as I know he never decided on this. All he decided on was that 0/0=0. Which also makes very little sense. Pretty sure this is derives from the fact that 0/x=0. Do if x is 0 that has to be the case too. But my previous post already shows how you can use other examples to make a division by 0 be any value you want using such logic.
So no, /0 can’t just be negative or positive infinity. It can be anything in-between as well. That’s why it’s undefined.
This isn’t something that is inherently true. It was chosen to be undefined. But for good reasons. If you look at another example you can see a possibility of defining something that was previously considered impossible.
√-1=i
In this case it was decided to define this as an imaginary number on the complex plane. This works because all the rules of mathematics can still be applied to this. The new number I has a defined value on the complex plane and can be manipulated. Let’s say we do this with 1/0 and define it as j. Any calculation with that number j would have a different outcome depending on how you approach it. Hence the decision to make it undefined, because there is no way to have a consensus and still keep math working the way it does.
When can we expect to see an update that shows the balance held because of transaction fees?
We deployed a point release on the satellite side that is now able to track these information. I don’t think this is visible on the storage node side with the next release. So earliest would be in 2-3 weeks from now.
what are the changes in version 1.21.2
It’s a fix for an issue where people couldn’t select satellites in the drop down.
