It would be hard to emulate for any rational reason.
I donât think many SNOâs will try to weed out old data versus active data. I think everyone just wants more data, warm/cold, they just want more of it to fill their drives.
1 Like
Iâd say it depends if you have space available and/or can expand. This is not necessarily the case.
I guess I donât understand what you would do as a node operator here. Remove data that is cold? You would fail the checks and become disqualified. Gracefully exit an old node because it has become stale and then wait X number of months to refill it with new data? I donât think that would be profitable.
How do you see removing cold data in favor of warm/active?
2 Likes
Use 3 nodes, once your available space is full, exit the oldest one and start a new one. Rinse repeat.
Itâs not worth it currently, but we only have 3 years of data atm. What happens when some data is 5+ years old. Some old full nodes may never see egress again. I could buy a new HDD or just exit a node and get fresh ingress. If that doubles or triples egress, that might become worth it.
4 Likes
Plus I get the remaining 50% of my held amount back on graceful exit.
Yeah, I know. Just try to give a tangent example of why paying SNOs more for storing old data might not make sense.
Could you elaborate? I agree but wanna know whatâs your take.
If node operators try to get rid of old data instead of keeping it, it might make sense to pay more.
Even more if node operators choose not to do a graceful exit and the old data needs to be repaired.
1 Like
I mainly see graceful exit as it gives the incentive of returning the remaining half of the held amount.
As I understand it, vetting will become fast again in the future, so a node operator will not have to wait many months until he receives full ingress again with the incentive the at current prices he receives 20$ per TB instead of (or even additionally to) 1.5$ per TB.
Youâre gonna be building that held amount back up again as well though, so that doesnât help much. (Unless you start your node with just 100GB assigned and wait 9 months until you give it more space)
I guess the bottom line is that with a rotational approach of adding and removing nodes, you may be making more money and if you cheat the held back system by staying small during the first 9 months, you donât have to bother with the long graceful exit system either. Thatâs what current incentives kind of tell us to do. So you want to prevent SNOs from following that approach.
- Fix the held amount system by making held amount a fixed amount per TB stored and keep building it as the node grows
- Give nodes an incentive to keep old data, even if there is basically no egress on it anymore.
3 Likes
Thatâs true but thatâs always the case when you start new. But if you compare it to the alternative to have your node running until the drive dies, and thatâs only a matter of time, thatâs when you will lose the remaining 50% guaranteed.
So for a node that does not earn a lot anymore, it might be an advantage, to pull the remaining 50% and start all over again. But of course it all depends on the circumstances.
1 Like
What about paying more for repair egress?, old segments are the ones that more probably need to be repaired.
What i donât know (and maybe someone can tell me) is what happen to the old pieces when a segment get repaired?. my initial thinking is that the segment is reconstructed, creating all new 80 pieces, uploaded to new random nodes, and then the old pieces are discarded.
if that is the case then the scheme that you propose should be tied to de age of the segment, not the piece.
2 Likes
I like that. I kind of already suggested to align it with normal egress pay. But even then repair wonât be enough to compensate loss of normal egress.
I donât agree with this. New nodes end up getting those pieces, so why should they instantly get paid more before proving they hold the piece reliably long term. In fact, the lower payout for the piece could help Storj Labs recoup some of the repair costs as well.
The way I see it, itâs a revenue share. Storj Labs gets to make more money on the data acquisition early on and then the revenue share switches towards node operators for data retention. That puts the incentives in the right places.
Because those pieces belong to old files that arenât getting any egress (cold backups). I thought that was the point you and @jammerdan were discussing, to avoid full nodes exiting because they are holding old stale data and to âboost static storage incomeâ. New pieces belonging to old files will not generate egress just because the file was recently repaired.
1 Like
Thatâs a fair point. There wonât be any egress like with new data. But i kind of feel like you also havenât really yet earned a loyalty bonus if you just received the piece. And if all pieces that have been on your node longer get higher pay, it doesnât matter that these individual pieces donât get as much earnings early on, the incentive is already strong enough to not want to give up your node. Besides, I kind of like the idea of letting Storj Labs recoup some of the repair costs by resetting the piece to lower payout.
I think there are valid arguments for both approaches though.
1 Like
I wonder if we can do something like that on repair egress too.
Repair egress means, a âgoodâ SNO helped to repair the network. There could be an incentive on that egress if that is a rather old piece too. By old I mean the real age that this piece was stored on that node.
I donât know if that would be a real incentive, because you never know when and how much repair is required. But it would be a reward for those who run long term reliable nodes.
So maybe such a node could earn himself up to get the same payout for old repair egress as for regular egress?
1 Like
You suggested the cold type of storage, which is cheaper but slow to retrieve. The Storj network is designed as a hot storage, so such behavior will be difficult to emulate, and also why do this at all?
On the other hand, the idea of some kind of data prioritization for a premium is tempting.
If it is held forever, then it is not âheld back amountâ, but just a reduced payment. Why display it at all?
Right now, the idea is that my node earns the stated amount of money, but some of it is held âin escrowâ until the node gracefully exists. If the node loses data, the money is not given back.
However, if some % of the earnings is âheldâ with no way of getting it back, then it is not âheldâ, itâs just a tax on earnings. Or, you can just state a lower pay rate and say that nothing was held.
Also, if the held amount is never returned, there is no reason to do graceful exit. unless you are proposing to hold the $10 in addition to the normal held amount, in which case new node operators will have to wait a long time to see any income.
2 Likes