Restrain new nodes! to provide all nodes at least 1TB egress /mo

i think the company should close new nodes registration untill current nodeshave around 1TB of egress a month for every 1 TB of disk space.

My frustration is i have few nodes and i see some 100GB, 55GB a month in egress, please… im keeping pc 24/7, i monitor them, im thinking about them all the time only for this?

in my opinion new nodes registration should be closed long time ago.

what other SNO thinks ?

How to do a poll?

1 Like

What do you mean by this? Egress is how much people download from you - it’s a function of whether or not you’re storing the data being requested. How would one evenly distribute egress - if you’re not storing the bit that’s needed, you can’t send it.


I also hope to maximize my earnings here, but this personal interest is not the main focus of Storj the company, nor should it be.

I think it is best to think of the community of SNOs as a bunch of individuals who have elected to take part in an experiment, in which we might make money, but we’re not guaranteed any particular amount. We are the service providers, and Storj the company has actual paying customers. IMO the most important thing for the company to do is to ensure that there is growing customer demand. If there are too many SNOs, that is a “good problem” for the ecosystem (in that it ensures that the demand can be met), and it will tend to self-correct, as people who don’t find it sufficiently profitable will gradually tend to exit.

For myself, I’m happy to stick around as long as there’s a hope of making a few dollars a month. Sure, I hope that will turn into a few more dollars per month, but the company should not distract itself by trying to directly address that hope.


No I don’t agree with this. This is not mining, no one is guaranteed any amount of network traffic, and there are no constants in the business model. If these are truly your feelings then I don’t think this is for you. No one is getting rich quick here. Can you make some money, sure. Does it happen quickly, no. There are estimators out there where you can try to estimate payouts based on age, storage space, internet bandwidth, etc.

As @o1eal mentions, the amount of traffic and number of nodes have a cyclic relationship. Traffic goes up, SNOs join/add more nodes, traffic goes down, SNOs leave.

Additionally, I’m assuming you’re multiple nodes are all running at the same location and behind the same /24 subnet. And in that case the network sees all of your nodes as one collective node. So ingress is split between those nodes. Then when data owners call for their data back, if your node(s) happen to have the pieces to it, you get some egress. You have to have data stored to get egress, and amassing stored data just takes time.

Patience is the name of the game here. But making demanding suggestions like this will go no where with veteran SNOs who actively participate on this forum, and will definitely not get any sort of response you’d like from anyone involved with the Storj organization.

Hope you stick around, because the results long term are definitely worth it in my opinion.


You completly missunderstood.
Storj has said and is familiar with the problem, i just want to hold them accountable.
Storj said they need to balance SNOs and the demand - in my opinion it needs more care.

And to the first bro oreal1, im old SNO here and i already made good part out of it.
But i have to say my feedback, people:
Storj was retaining new nodes creation before, then they reopened it.
IMHO they should close it again!

Don’t You understand that its better to have lets say 8000 nodes, and pay them well, than 16000 nodes and everyone kinda unhappy? because it what its goin to right now, especialy the new ones will make BAD NAME to Storj after that unpleasent experience.

The proposal is this: Storj close options for new nodes , and let the OLD nodes get more data, because we the OLD nodes have plenty of space declared and its still not used, and in the same time new nodes are allowed to join the network, - THIS IS MY PROBLEM, its unfair, let us fill our nodes first better and THEN when You will see its topping up, then You can reopen for new nodes, hope its clear what i think now!

Edit: No they are in diffrent locations , because im familiar with the ip’s limit.
At the begining 1 single node 0,7TB disk space was doing 0,3TB of egress/mo, now its often tops at 0,2TB with exceptions

Actually this proposal is late to the table, because Storj has allowed new nodes for at least 5-10 months to long, if would they halted it 5-10 months ealier, there would be more egress for stable old nodes. And now my 0,9TB node does little to nothing egress 0,15-0,2TB/mo, thats nothing, i want to keep my nodes, but bro not with that egress c’mon you understand? Thank You.

How do you know this reduction is because of an influx of new nodes? Couldn’t it just be that there’s less traffic right now or something?

No, I don’t think Storj should throttle sign-ups necessarily. The point is to build redundancy and distribute workload so that customers can be sure their data is always available. It’s better to have the 16000 nodes than the 8000 nodes because that equates to more redundancy, storage capacity, availability etc.


We can shortcut this conversation really quickly thanks to the public stats. There is about 9PB in use and 7PB free on the network. That is not unbalanced growth. The network relies on their being enough nodes with free space to ensure that new data is still widely distributed and having more than 50% of space being used is absolutely reasonable. It’s not unbalanced, not yet at least. I’m sorry if you don’t think compensation is enough. But it is. It’s reasonable pay for the services offered and if you’re unhappy, then I’m sorry, but market effects say you’re probably among the people who will not think its’s worth it. It’s not for everyone, but there are plenty of people who still do think it worth it. So at this moment I see no reason to change track. Now that may change soon. I do fear ex chia farmers flooding in when they realize Chia is not worth it anymore. At that time we may need limiting of node registration again. But not right now, not just yet.


By the time ex chia will switch to something else, I suppose their storage will be worn out considerably.
Anyway, I also don’t think we should stop new operators from joining. It is better to have more storage available than to arrive in a situation when new clients won’t be able to use storage due to lack of it. And when such situation arrives storj won’t be able to quickly attain new SNO’s without some special incentive. Of course, it doesn’t mean that there should be unreasonably huge amount of new storage and SNO’s, but there is no logical reason for it to become this way.
Also, I too think that payment is reasonable. It will not be same as quick and high gains as with mining, but after some time nodes do grow, and with growth comes better payments.

1 Like

Actually if they didn’t plot on the HDDs (which would be really slow anyways) the drives will be in very good condition. Mining Chia is way less read/write intensive than running a node from what I understand.
I do agree with BrightSilence, I too fear a massive influx of capacity when Chia becomes less profitable, however it should be mitigated by the ip/subnet system.
More than the capacity it’s the number of new nodes that matters the most because of how uploads are distributed.


This sounds reasonable first, but may not have a long term impact. Those Chia miners, who realize it is not worth mining Chia, I don’t believe the will come to the final conclusion that it is worth for them to offer their space on Storj. I just imagine someone who has invested massively into expensive hardware and drives and after a month of Storj he only earns less than $1 and he realizes it will take decades to get his rig of 18TB drives filled.
I don’t believe people like this will stay too long as a SNO. Those people were after the quick buck, not the long term.


That’s exactly my fear. We’ve seen the same happen with people from burst. A bunch of uncommitted node operators flooding in with unreliable nodes and exiting without a second thought a few months later. Except Chia is already almost 100x the size burst ever was and will be many hundreds of times the size once the exodus really begins. The scale of it is what is scary and allowing all those nodes in in a short period of time would lead to a lot of unbalance at first and massive repair costs shortly after. It’s better to prepare than to get into that situation and having to try and find a way out.

1 Like

I don’t see how former chia miners can influence storj, especially considering the difference in scale. Sure, there are people who own multiple petabytes worth of drives, but it’s impossible for them to profit from storj as it takes months to fill even 1TiB with data.
So they may come and go, but it won’t change much for storj.


I think you are completely understood by all posting here; what you’re encountering is disagreement, not misunderstanding.

When you speak of “fairness” do you mean that because you were here first, and invested your time and equipment first, that the opportunity should come to you before it comes to somebody else? Well, I just started less than two months ago. Maybe I should just leave this discussion to the old-timers? Is that more fair?


No i mena fainerss in general, fairnes in relation disck space to usage of it, my thinking:
0,7 disk space with 0.1 to 0,15TB usage a month (mostly egress) = unfair
0.7 disk space with 0,5 to 0,7 TB usage a month would be fair enough!

So every new node joining the network isn’t helping (because its just dilutes the data), all i said is its better to pay all participating people good, and manage/balance inflow of new nodes joining, than let everyone join free and dissapoint everyone with poor payment,

and to lost old prooven nodes because they just won’t persevere (because of costs of maitaining a working node 24/7/365 in full operation, (You can have only 5h a month offline, before u lose some % of score, thats very little, so our job is very responsible to keep it always online))

so its better to perservere smaller pool of nodes with better morale, than to open free for all to join and inflate the morale, because we cant control customers, the data inflow they decide to put in network and when, BUT we can control inflow of new nodes! thats all im saying.

for example my node for last 12 months got from 0,06TB to 0,19TB of egress from a disk space of 0,7TB, i belive if Storj had halted new nodes joining, responsibly, nodes like mine would be better off, like im hoping 0,3TB or 0,5TB would be really great a month, im not asking for impossible, just that instead of 0,06 TB (69gigs in one month)

1 Like

Egress happens when a real customer downloads his data back. So what you’re asking is essentially “make sure that customer downloads all his data every month and pays for it”. It’s not possible.

You’re allowed 288 hours of downtime within any given 30-day span before node is disqualified. A day of downtime won’t even result in a suspension. It’s lax enough.


egress per TB stored wouldn’t go up with less nodes. Egress per TB stored is on average the same for every node with a sufficiently large dataset to get close to the network average.
So if there were less nodes, you’d still get the same ratio of egress but you’d get more ingress and would have more data stored. (and therefore get more egress in total but the ratio of egress per TB stored stays the same)

Besides: Why is one ratio unfair and the other one fair? Are we in the fair trade business? Is anyone being exploited? There’s no unfairness, just less profitability und unfullfilled expectations.
The only way to get more egress per TB stored is to force the customer to download their data more often and pay more… So that’s fair to them then? :smiley:


it is not profitable to hold 0.7TB nodes, my nodes start from 3TB.
To have income I invested to hardware, and time to make all it work
It is normal that new nodes income is small. As you get more data income will rize, also after 3 months Held ammount go from 75% to 50% also rize


Planning around income from Egress traffic is likely to be a bad idea anyway as it depends very much on the markets that Storj targets and attracts. While my average monthly storage has (slowly) increased over the last 6 months, my monthly Egress traffic has in fact dropped.

The most likely reason for this is that people storing data are using Storj for cold storage tasks such as backup and off-site redundancy, rather than for hot storage where they expect to retrieve the data frequently.

The new pricing may cause more hot storage usage now that the Egress fees have been greatly reduced, but for node operators that just gives us 6 months of increasing data egress before a likely repricing of the payments. If you missed the change back in April it was a major one, node operators were receiving 44% of all earned Egress fees paid to STORJ, currently, node operators are receiving 285% of all earned Egress fees paid to STORJ.

As a side note, based on my node’s Egress last month I would need to used storage to increase from 5TB to about 22TB to see 1TB of egress traffic during a month.


I have roughly 22TB and see ~3TB egress per month. My nodes are 18 months old, therefore I have older/other pieces on my nodes that might get downloaded more frequently…

1 Like

How much of the ~3TB is Download Egress vs Repair & Audit Egress. I was basing my figure on just Download Egress? My average monthly Repair & Audit Egress is already greater than my Download Egress

1 Like