Well, how else would you attract massive number of users to jumpstart the network? It’s a chicken and an egg problem – no customers, no pay, no snos, no customers.
Now it’s running, so these incentives no longer needed.
Who did not know that charging $7/GB and paying $20/GB times expansion factor is not sustainable?
When would it make sense to you personally to shut it down?
Myself – I would keep it running even at $0 payout. Because the alternative is wasting resources. I don’t like wasting resources. (If you have better use for resources – then those are not free available resources)
It’s a you problem. Storj is not responsive for your lack of reading comprehension, sorry. You were not supposed to buy hardware, only use existing idle one. That’s the whole premise of the project. Why is it so hard to comprehend?
It would be better to remove synthetic traffic, thereby significantly reducing expenses. Synthetic data is stored on nodes, I believe more than half of it, and it incurs significant costs.
Absolutely not, since our goal is not to harm the network or damage its reputation with customers. We are not enemies or competitors, we are part of this community! That is why the “strike” date is set in 2 working weeks, and not tomorrow. We understand that the Storj team must have time to think about.
Our goal is simply to show that there are quite a lot of operators who are dissatisfied with this approach, and the “strike” is just a method to attract the attention of Managers, and not “managers” who write about “everything is ok” and “only 12%”.
Personally, I hope that we will be heard and there will be no need to conduct such experiments on the network; we also do not need reputational losses if something goes wrong, because we have also invested a lot of effort and money into the network. And if we really need to “strike”, it would be better if they increase the backup ratio so that the action is a peaceful demonstration and not the destruction of other people’s valuable data.
It’s not my job, nor anyone’s job but Storj, to know whether a particular price is sustainable. If a business says they will pay me $x/hr for work, it’s not my responsibility as the employee to do research to see if that rate is actually sustainable or not.
Once another project that comes around which will pay a better rate for that space and bandwidth. Could be something like storj, could be a proof-of-space crypto. It’s a bad argument to compare storj to doing nothing with that hardware - the real comparison would be to compare it to other projects that will also pay you for space.
Inflating synthetic traffic leads to loss of orientation and the generation of unjustified hopes.
It is more honest to explicite declare that there is an excess of nodes on the network.
We need to be honest. There is no benefit to our project from soap bubbles.
Did you hear the words “synthetic load”, “test satellites”? You did zero research and now complain about … what exactly? That world does not match your uninformed idea about how things should work?
You are not an employee. Stop saying that. You are independent contractor at best. For contractors, compensation can change any time to any number going forward.
And in your hypothetical scenario, for an employee of a business it will be ridiculously dumb to start employment without learning about what your employer is doing and how sustainable it is. Of course it’s your responsibility! Who’s else? You are supposed to do due diligence. Nobody promised you fixed amount of money for life just because you showed up. I highly doubt you don’t research the shit of the company you are about to work at. Who does that?!
This is why I wrote:
For me – I can’t be arsed looking for other projects. Storj is very easy to setup and use, I like the idea of the project, and I don’t care about crypto. So yes, for me it’s’ either zero or storj.
How about Disks COSTS → people DON’T buy them if no need? There is NO UNUSED SPACE, that’s a FALSE statement. It’s always for something, otherwise You wouldn’t have it! And just sold it! PERIOOOOOOD.
If You already have disk, and wonder
1)if risk using it for STORJ with a net result ~0$ after years, making efforts along the way to keep it, and it breaks and now You did not earn enough to even buy a replacement.
2) or just sell it,
3) or just keep it for real need later just in case,
what would reasonable person choose?
if knew from the beginning 1) will not give any real benefit, but a much possible lose?
Do You know “Human Action” by Ludwig von Mises? …
if there’s a reward for action, there is incentive to get disks to make a node.
“Unused disks” - It’s all based on lie!
I don’t know, but I don’t think I would run another node, even if I had a different location or if my node was disqualified.
The pool with the node is ~36TB, out of it, 11TB is free space, 20TB is used by the node and something like 3-4TB of my own data.
I could redo the pool so that there are fewer hard drives, use the drives in another server (to replace much older drives), maybe even shut down the server and move the other data to my other servers etc.
Oh boy, i never tought of siding with @arrogantrabbit (aka the troll ) but here i am.
(My UPS just working fine, found a cheap Blue walker fittting in the narrow space.)
Trust me, hes dead serious.
This should be written at every earnings estimator…
There was this good idea in the other thread which is taking another approach for rewarding SNOs.
Make the revenue more dependent on the online score for example:
2$/TB avg. used disk multiplied with online score e.g. 90% makes 1.8$ revenue
Same for engress and repair.
Or some other algorithm like:
60% minimum online score, so you’ve 40% room to get income: e.g 90% avg disk: 2$*([0.9-0.6]*100/40)=1.5$
So you can put some pressure on the SNOs…
You have to calculate where barriers are, but so you can reward the SNOs which are willing to put some work into this project, but those who care less will get less…
This would be OK for me, as long as there is no need for quick reaction times if there is a problem. Operating a node does not pay nearly enough to hire employees to watch it 24/7
While I acknowledge the motive, means and opportunity for performing the strike, I will not participate for reasons I stated in my other posts.
I am worried, however, that elevated repair traffic might make my nodes participate unwillingly without my input into the matter. I am talking here about a potential for a cascading system failure.
I would therefore request that the first such event was short enough not to trigger the repair activity.
What you say is only applicable if your data does not grow. You have your 8TB fixed collection, and you expect to have 8TB fixed collection 5 years from now. Then you buy 8TB array worth of disks and have no free space to run node. Great. you are in no position to host a node. Why are you here?
That is not most people though. For most people data grows year over year, at accelerated rate. For example, they take a bunch of pictures that need to be backed up, they host work data, raw footage, backups from family; Anecdotally I add over 1TB this year. And it keeps increasing year over year.
Hence, if I buy disks today, I shall size them large enough to accommodate my needs for the next 5 years. For two reason:
A year from now I don’t want to need to redo the whole array, sell old disks, buy new disks
Disk bays cary opportunity cost: I have a finite number of them, so if I stick a small disk there I have used up the space a bigger disk could fit.
This means you always have on average half of 5-year worth of anticipated growth empty, and then some, because you unlikely to find disks that exactly match your prediction. That’s what you share with storj.
Well, storj is not suppose to buy you disks. You buy disks for yourself. Storj comes later.
This is not a realistic scenario. I can’t sell the disk – it’s part of the array.
Right.
You also seem to be talking about one isolated disk. Nobody has isolated disks spinning. they are useless. Modern disks are meant to be used in arrays: the reliability was traded for low cost, so you pretty much have to use redundant arrays. Plus you get much better performance from an array with modern filesystems than you can ever get from a single disk. So this spherical disk in the vacuum does not exist
As described above, a reasonable person will anticipate growth and size the storage array to last 5 years or more, and run storage node on empty space in the meantime.
No, I’ll give it a read, thank you.
Three is no incentive. Storage node cannot/should not sustainably pay enough to buy you a disk. Otherwise storj would just build their own datacenter. They won’t need you. Past gigantic payouts were needed to bootstrap the business and break chicken/egg loop. They were never sustainable and you know that.
Storage node offsets your costs you have regardless of whether you run it or not. Offsets. Not reimburses nor is intended to make you profit.
You can’t shrink a node, so whatever space I allocate to it can be considered lost. It’s not like I can shrink the node by 100GB to free up some space for my files. So far the options are:
use the space that I plan to never use for my stuff
Kill a big node to reclaim all used space, then recreate a smaller one and sit without income for a year.
Run many small nodes that could be removed easily, increasing the administration/monitoring effort and possibly system load for the same exact payout.
) but here i am.
