This is likely a topic for a separate thread, so please feel free to split it if you think it makes sense.
I always took the existence of the migration guide as a sign that vetting (and the held amount as well) is not exactly about reliability of node’s hardware, software or network. Nodes were always changing hardware or being moved from place to place. Applying the analogy of the Ship of Theseus would be a good fit here. I assume here nobody—neither SNO nor Storj—wants to abandon a failing node that can be recovered and brought to a stable condition by just swapping some parts or moving it to a different network. The alternative would be SNO losing revenue and Storj having to pay for repair traffic.
Instead, I thought vetting is about operator prowess. «Does SNO have the skills necessary to set up a node?» «Can they configure hardware and software so that the node is reliable and fast enough?» We know—from many, many threads on this forum—that even the first steps might be troublesome, so the fact that a node survived vetting is more an account of SNO’s work than just good hardware. «Cheating» would then be a word I’d reserve to practices like selling pre-vetted nodes to other people.
And the difference between having two nodes on the same hard drive, and two nodes on two different hard drives in the same computer is not big. You still share most of hardware, all of software and networking setup, and all of wetware who manages the nodes. At some point something might happen to the shared power supply or the motherboard, or there might be a botched Windows update. What guards against these events is not vetting, but geographical spread of data.
Hence the statement:
doesn’t really make sense to me in this context. Besides, another of your statements also makes me ask a question:
…so if I plan from start to have multiple nodes on a single drive, making that drive “the actual hardware” I plan to run all nodes on, I am fine, because it’s the hardware that vetting “rightfully” tests?