You can calculate it from a Blockchain.
Where is reducing S3 usage? There needs to be an incentive for customers to make use of self hosted and uplink and whatever is there to avoid the S3.
Or at least pay for it.
It may be already self hosted also.
I don’t know If I am allowed to share that. I believe someone has mentioned a bit over 100K last month on the blockchain? I can’t find where I was reading that 
I propose something regarding repairs; please don’t shoot.
Retain the last month’s payout on more month. If SNO looses the node or triggers repair for downtime, deduct the repair cost from his retained payout.
This way you don’t need complicated online scores to be part of payout calculations and the repair cost is resolved.
I will totaly vote yes for this.
But no payout reductions!
Second, inputing online score in payout calculation is a mistake and is unfair. The majority of downtime, at least for me, is not my fault and I can’t do anything about it. Unless you ask me to run a personal power plant and Starlink sats.
You are correct. It’s a self-hosted as many other services.
But I like the idea to charge egress if the customer uses Storj-hosted Gateway and do not charge egress, if they use native, or charge less (but it also should come with a 0-egress payout, unfortunately).
I support this idea, and I also wanted to have a way to outsource repairers to SNOs for some $$ (which must be less than a self-hosted in-house, sorry).
Even if we could magically do $0 repair traffic that would be a lowish cost saving.
Repeating the same incorrect statement doesn’t make that correct. Has there ever been anything in the payout calculation thats factors in the online score? No! I do know where you picked up that statement. Just be aware that there are people in this forum that are spreading false information.
This is true, I just put it as an idea here:
It doesn’t mean that it’s implemented or will be 
Better scream no 10 times before, than after. 
I don’t understand this suggestion.
If the node is not online it cannot earn egress. Why multiplying this with an online score? if it is not onle, no egress.
Yes, please do that!!! Now!!!
I think I got confused along the way, with so many posts… the proposal was about taking into account the online score for node selection. I don’t like that either for the motiffs mentioned above. Sorry for the confusion created.
If they use more infrastructure then they should pay more. It is dead simple and has been suggested and requested for years.
Maybe NOW its the time to implement it before slashing the SNOs.
Yes, but it should discourage any malicious behavior to put nodes offline deliberatively or if the channel is overloaded (assuming that /24 rule could be removed and donation space could be implemented). Also, if the ISP is not good or DDNS, it should incentives to improve thing. Maybe it’s a bad idea, I don’t have any supporting numbers of this idea, maybe @Andrew can explain, what could be the point to make so.
They expected, that the online score is multiplied with the calculated payout amount and this number is used (it’s not) as a payout.
I honestly never thought this way, but they gave me an idea. Likely a bad one
hard to tell, since i only stumpled over storj a few months ago and decided to join as SNO.
I’ve never really seen this as an opportunity to “earn”, more like a method to reduce runinng cost. I run storagenodes on all sorts of hardware, some industrial in datacenters, some at home or in my office,
usually on drives i had laying around. Problem i see (and i can only speak for myself) that the less it returns (not profit, thats far away), the less people care, decisions to for example replace failing drives can tip towards “just let it die, who cares about the 4$”… I would be fine if you would reduce egress payments, maybe even repair traffic…the latter is mostly generated by other failing nodes,
so why not incentivise SNOs “motivating” each other to not let their nodes die? And, please do not ditch the /24 rule..people stating they have expenses for additional IPs only to get more shares are to blame themselves, absolutley, and i dont see any other pro-argument for this. maybe a smaller CIDR size could be a compromise as it still would limit nodecount per IP / line
edit: donating space, first GBs are unpaid, doesnt sound bad aswell…
Yes Alexey is right it can be calculated from the blockchain but wasn’t able to do so yet. I thought you might have the numbers at hand.
I also had around $100k in mind. A 20% reduction is $20K.
1/3 of a BTC. Honestly this does not sound like a lot. Looking at Coinmarketcap STORJ 24h volume is $8.54M. $20K is something like if every SNO payout address donates $7.
STORJ 24h volume is out of scope, they are a medium, the utility token, not shares, stocks or securities, so not helpful for Storj Labs in a financial meaning. They simplifying things, but currently they are used only for that.
The proposal $STORJ Community Buyout: Indication of Interest Is Open should give them also another usage, hopefully.
I understand that. But isn’t the incentive already in place through:
- egress → No egress earned for existing pieces if offline
- ingress1 → No ingress while offline, therefore not getting paid for available space that could become utilized.
- ingress2 → Extended periods of no ingress when suspended due to bad online score
- ingress3 → Impossible to earn egress for new pieces when there is no ingress.
I would say all of that factors already for a good online score and incentivizes SNOs to maintain it.
Yes, but perhaps they meant the also proposed idea to remove the egress payout?
You are not paid for an available space, only for used. So, perhaps this coefficient should also punish not only as a missing egress, deletions later but also for the stored data, which was offline?
also remove more data, because it’s repaired to others.
I see it only with the conjunction with removing /24 filter and donating space. It will help home datacenters to reduce their costs on bypassing /24, but will not allow to reuse the disk for more than a one node (to reduce a possibility to lose many segments in the same time due to a hardware failure). With also this idea of applying an online score could help to do not grow infinitely on the limited internet channel.
I don’t know.