Let's address the /24 subnet limitation ipothetic removal

[shka]

@Knowledge

I tend to think if we got rid of the /24 filter, that the majority of nodes would get less data, not more. Even if you are splitting data with multiple nodes, the fact is that data centers have large pools of static IP’s that they could assign to each node. They would blanket the network with far more IP’s than the home users would have. That’s the entire reason for having the /24 rule in the first place, to prevent this. They would end up with the majority of the data, and thus it would centralize.

Is it better to support IP types except for the data centers? For example, www.ip2location.com tells your IP type as “Usage Type”. Then even if /24 filter is removed, it’s impossible to use VPS/VPN through the (honestly registered) data centers. But of course, it allows residential-proxies/-VPN still.

[Pentium100]

ip2location does not always have accurate information, the “usage type” is not part of RIPE data or anything. One ISP had its IPs designated as datacenter until customer complained about it and then they contacted ip2location to tell them to fix the assignment.

[EasyRhino]

As mentioned before, I don’t see a difference between a /24 and a /32 from a reliability perspective. a /24 isn’t really that big, only 256 addresses. It’s probably still in one data center, or in one neighborhood, and vulnerable to network outages.

I like an idea kind of mentioned earlier, that works within existing storj concepts. and that would be:

for additional nodes in a /24 (or maybe even something bigger like a /22? limit the bandwidth for nodes in the vetting period but after they are vetted, release the restriction.

[Alexey]

this limit is already happened automatically: old and new nodes selected one from /24, but also a new one has a separate pool of 5% ingress from the customers, all new nodes shares it.
So, 2 new nodes will get half of the data share each from 5% selection for their /24 subnet.
Or maybe I did not get your suggestion?

[humbfig]

No, no no…

First, decentralisation is important. Otherwise Storj is just another storage provider.

Second, people who think they will get more traffic if /24 limitation is removed are wrong. Everybody is smart and will deploy a bunch of nodes. Collectively, they will all look dumb.

Third, no deposits upfront. Just NO!
If you had to make a deposit for your first node, the Storj model, with amateur SNO’s with a bit of space to spare, would never work. I would not have started a node if I had to put money into it. Now that I have a feeling for the thing, I could do the math and decide, but for a first time SNO it would just not work.

I think only the “semi-professionals” come to the forum to discuss these things. I hope Storj management realizes this and doesn’t forget what Storj is about. A bunch of “amateurs” with a bit of space to spare ensuring true decentralisation (even though the satellites are a stain on the decentralisation, which should be better addressed).
Storj is not for semi-professionals. Their specific interests should be disregarded.

PS- Notice that I’m speaking against myself. I regard myself as a semi-professional. I run 6 nodes on 3 different IP/24. Truly decentralised, since I have only 1 IP at my home (and no VPS, VPN…).

[Krimarai]

Held amount is a good system. I don’t think that deposit is better. Held can just be higher if there is a need to remove subnet limit.