I would propose that the time period to collect held amount just be extended and the % for the first 3 months be reduced so that nodes starting out earning something at least.
So, my percentages would be:
Months 1-3 - 60% retained.
Months 4-6 - 50% retained
Months 7-9 25% retained
Months 10-12 - 10% retained.
Because a node earns more the more data it holds this would increase the amount Storj would hold in custody.
Can Storj provide any statistics on the breakdown of when nodes leave the system on a % basis?
this does not prevent running the node with 0.5 tb until 12m and then grow it to 21TB with no held…wich is unfair and unsustainable.
if a drive/node fails who/what ever is at fault, there are repaircost for the network.
so storj needs to protect this weak spot asap (imho)
until Storj decides to cover it from their own pocket (wich makes no sense anyway today) we need propper held connected to the size of the node, and the age. (for anticheat keeping the node under the 1st heldbackwall)
adjusting percentages does not provide that, until you collect held forever, wich punishes old nodes therfore makes no sense also.
You would be missing out on any ingress for those last few months before withheld ended - which could actually cost more than paying it. If I miss out on 1 months data at 10% withheld that is surely going to cost me more than 10% of what Storj would pay me otherwise. tbh the first 6 months are largely irrelevant as so little is collected.
I think the age over 15 months is irrelevant. What you care about is having a reasonable enough pot to cover costs involved and large enough SNO’s want to recover it. I’ve simply never cared about my withheld amounts as is.
I disagree with this assertion - if you follow the Storj recommendation and have 1 node to 1 disk and don’t have something like zfs or RAID then the node will eventually fail no matter what. All hardware dies given enough time. The only criteria that should matter given your scenario is the amount of data stored.
+1 to the idea to return the held amount only on GE to cover repair costs. There is no reason to pay the held amount back early.
I think that since we are talking about money here, one should not just rely on trust that the node operator will not shut down the node after x months after all.
But a new disk is likely to cost $50-$100+ whereas withheld will in all likelyhood cost you less than $20 to write off and use that storage instead. Even if Storj retain all withheld it still makes no economic sense not to just delete a node instead of buying more storage.
Yes. But its not only about economy. Its about security of the node network.
If it is an large scale attac of an big enemy cloudcenter, i would host massive nodes for storj, including incubating and held evading behavior and then boom. Al nodes down, storj struggles with repair cost/ segments lost and goes out of bussines
i thought about the issue with held amount a bit in the past.
my eventual conclusion was that held amount needs to mirror the data stored.
so lets make it fairly easy then…
egress during GE is unpaid, so i argue that a reasonable amount would be the TB egress rate.
well the egress rates is a bit annoying to easily calculate for all sats, so i will a rough estimate.
there are how many sats now 3 or 4 sats?
did GE for 3 of mine… so don’t really know lol… sorry
i think its 4
at 5, 6 and 10 $ pr TB egress = ill call that a 7$ pr TB egress avg
thus a 10TB node would have 70$ in minimum held amount… until GE
because else why bother with GE.
uploading 10TB is a massive challenge for most.
there is no loss to Storj for this… also less repair costs because people would care more.
i would also suggest that held amount is always collected, until the minimum is meet.
so as a node grows, the reward for doing the GE also grows.
this is the only sensible way i’ve been able to come up with.
ofc this would be on a satellite basis and based on the individual sat egress rate and the amount of data stored by the storagenode for that satellite.
just trying to show that the numbers would be in line with what i would consider reasonable.
when considering how much load a GE causes.
Because if this is money I I have already earned but storj owes to me indefinitely to punish me if I fail to GE — then:
storj should be paying me interest on that money. Why should I give storj free loan?
I will not GE out of spite. (Ah you are holding my earnings expecting me to fail to ge? I’ll make sure to meet your expectations)
Instead, this should be framed as a “reward for GE”, that would be proportional to the nodes’s value for the network (age, size, uptime/audit metrics, etc) and normalized to nodes past earnings. .
I.e. people will be more likely to do GE for the reward, as opposed to under threat of punishment. Just a psychological subtlety.
SNOs! we have to build up an security amount for participating in the network!
To be save from harm trough exploiters and bankruptcy!
we just need to set the security reward for GE at x per stored tb!
you dont have to do anything, we set automaticaly
and then just adjust the held to the new system for every active node
today Held amount is working like punishment, when you are new and if hdd fails.
May be it better to account in payout price, and make like reword when you make GE successfully you will get additional some money.
for example people will get 1.45$ fot TB thay store all the time, then held amount will be accumulated all the time depending how much node store data. numbers are just for example no math was made. same thing with egress. This money should cut the repair work.
thats why i propose the age (under certain months could be held free) and the filling to be used.
ofc it would be wellcomed if held was to cover unexpected failure, and storj woud add an good bonus for ge, but under certain circumstances, so it would not be exploited.
