Well, it’s not nice to come to a group of individuals who are dedicated to a project and then “laugh at us” as you said.
If you have good ideas to improve the project (and it seems to me like you do, in between the constant criticism) then we’re all ears.
If you think it’ll fail and you’re just making fun of people then you’re just not a very nice person.
No, I don’t think it’s changeable.
There is a notable exception or two but I don’t think it’s “open to the public” as it were.
Yes, the upload function is disabled to prevent the attempts to pretend to be an Storj employee, to steal your money.
And yes, we have had such attempts, so the upload function is disabled.
Thank you for your reply.
Re-reading my post I wonder if it became a bit too “ad hominem”, apologies for that.
I think my point was that no matter how much you disagree with people there is little to be gained by making fun of them, even if you think they should “know better”.
I am most definitely in the “clueless node operator” category, but I would suggest that a more constructive approach might have better results. If you think the project is doomed anyway then just let Storj go about their business. Reality will eventually assert itself and if the project has no legs to stand on then it’ll fail eventually.
I would just suggest that you consider that:
Have to agree with you on the feedback from the point of “we’ll pass it on to the team” onwards, but on the flip side I guess it would probably be fairly onerous to feed back on every decision to every suggestion we give Storj. I agree, however, that it would be nice for us to have so closure or insight as to why suggestions may be discarded or their implementations put on the backburner.
I would leave this to our sales team to decide, sorry. You do not have the whole picture and likely never will have it, again - sorry. So all of your assumptions are wrong as proven many times, so I wouldn’t use your opinion as a source of a reality, sorry. But thanks for your opinion.
P.S. If you would switch to a constructive behavior it would be MUCH better. Sorry, If I offended you, but so far your answers looks only as a targetless attacks, thus my a hardest problem to disassociate you from “green, big, which we shouldn’t feed and probably should ban”.
Nuclear option which I’m usually quite opposed to and should be used extremely sparingly.
I don’t think this is the way forward.
You are right, I do not use this option too often, only for a new accounts, which has a description “pump and dump now!”.
So, this is why I DO NOT WANT to use on him. He is a “green, which should be not feed”, but sometimes he generates great ideas, especially being a SNO. Unfortunately never as a “free trial frozen “customer””…
Did you ever run a startup? If so, was it succeed?
If people thinks that you do (not only me), then perhaps, something wrong with your criticism? What do you think?
No, but I want to see a backed claims not attacks
That is AWESOME! I am the least entrepreneurial person in the world and have such admiration for people who have the guts to start up a business!
Ah, well this is strategic direction from the business. I suppose this would be the purview of the CEO and whichever board sets the company’s direction of travel. Best anyone can do is make suggestions to them but ultimately they make their decisions with the information they have and we just have to suck it up if we want to remain part of the project. 
This is what businesses are wants to have. They do not want to implement a native Storj integration “right now”, but if we onboard them with weakest technology which they used for years, but with improvements (encryption and geo-distribution), why not?
Later they can figure out, that using a Storj native even better, so it’s worth to put resources on it.
I do understand your “near-German” mindset, but, step-by-step is much more productive.
…completely useless, because price of the token is not related to any progress, it’s completely and pure speculations, nothing else. Especially when they know, that STORJ token is an utility token used only to pay for the service and to give payouts to the Storage Node Operators, nothing else, it’s not a commodity, not security, and not shares, and you do not put your money to the company, only to your own speculation goals.
Unfortunately, the constructive behavior includes “how to make it better”, and excludes “what’s wrong in my opinion”, if this is the only contribution (yours all that case, unfortunately. You always states without an evidence of course, what’s wrong and never - how to improve).
You are perhaps right, I took attacks too close, because I’m here since 2017 (not from the beginning in 2014, but still…), and I know that you are wrong (it’s proved by customers), but still - you are a potential very stone-made customer, but you can be turned to a light side, I believe.
And where is a relation between your imagined position in the market and your imagined relation to a moderator to be unprofessional?
I just missed a point with your imagines, sorry!
None of that was criticism. All of it sounds pretty hateful. I won’t deny that you also add valued criticism, but there’s also no denying that there is a lot of ad hominem to dig through to get there.
You can let your arguments speak for themselves without embellishing them with disdain. I promise, people will still listen to you. Probably even more.
How’s that working out for you? Have they stopped yet? Or have they decided someone immediately on the attack is not worth engaging with? There are better ways to get through to people than to make fun of them.
I’d just like to point out that you haven’t criticized the product in quite a while now. About 10 of your last posts were dedicated to calling everyone a cult and naive. In your own words, making fun of people. All of which are personal attacks.
Now I don’t want anyone banned and I don’t even flag posts like this. But I will certainly say the majority are not constructive, very repetitive and lead to long flame wars. This topic is a mess to the point where it seems you have even forgotten that someone did come back to respond to my initial question in quite a bit of detail. I was satisfied with that response. I’m not happy with the current state of this thread.
I would suggest to close it, because it’s contr-productive as now.
I don’t think I can close my topic. Unless I’m overlooking something. But yes, feel free to close it.
Even if I got the naming mixed up, the point is still valid.
No, the satellite has not started downloading all parts of the file. Just the next part in the queue.
The client (in this case the attacker) is billed regardless. Doesn’t matter if the file is 1GB or 1PB. If the client requests part A, part B begins downloading. If the client cancels before part B is sent, then part B is wasted (let’s go with 64MB). If the client waits until part B is done before cancelling, then part C of the file would be wasted (the next 64MB) and so on. This isn’t an attack vector. It would have been if the whole file was downloaded in parallel by the gateway, which is not what I was suggesting further down. I don’t know about the rest, but I would be perfectly happy if the waste is 64MB or in other words $0.000128x whatever number gateway needs to reassemble, let’s go with 100 = $0.0128 node payouts + whatever the egress cost for the gateway is (note:ingress to most clouds is zero, ie no transit cost from nodes > gateway), rounding up to an extremely generous $1… vs faster downloads by the client.
Ok, might have been the confusion between segment and piece.
Might be a tunable setting for the file owner: how many segments to fetch (and bill for) upfront.
Right now this idea can be implemented only on self-hosted server. Unfortunately even Gateway-ST doesn’t have a such option, so you need to implement a simple multipart downloader app using our SDK or S3 SDK. Actually, if you would go with the S3 path, you may implement a client-side script and host it statically from the Storj bucket.