I started yesterday - guess I am not wanted here 
2 Likes
You are, donât let some comments of other node operators discourage you. While Storj Labs has hinted at wanting to reward more loyal node operators, they would never do that at the cost of new node operators. But keep in mind that it is a marathon, not a sprint. You have to give it a little time to pay off.
7 Likes
[quote=âkevink, post:16, topic:14228â]
So if there were less nodes, youâd still get the same ratio of egress but youâd get more ingress and would have more data stored.
[/quote] - That statement is not true, because of âtest dataâ majority of SNO income, the subsidy, HOWEVER - more data stored is more egress! so? thats the goal. less nodes with the same demand, more data on average on existinmg nodes, right? so average more profit for existing nodes, its all im talking here, do i?
no its not? i mean yes, but thats more complicated,
if theres more nodes then Storj âtest dataâ which is subsidy basicly, has to reach to more nodes.
i pointed above, we cant control customers, but we can control new nodes inflow on and off.
of coruse the minuses of such managment would be it should be monitored carefully, because its a balance(!!!) beetween:
- paying nodes really good enough (i said more FAIR to theirs efforts, its resposible job i have nodes goin offline every couple of days for whatever reasons (for ex: ip operator domain fails) and i have to act)
and
2)having network capasity large, to take new big customers with no problem.
And the PROS would be as always, the more restricted something is, the more interest it gets. Again i did not invented this, Stroj started ON/OFFâing new nodes long ago.
im not even talking about my own interestst now, at this moment, i dont care, because i cant expand anyway to profit, i have caped at my 07-0,9TB nodes, so i cant get more, (well i do care about subsidy traffic tho, would be nice to get more ofcourse) im talking from a projecting and managment perspective for whole system, im thinking out whats utlimatlivly better for the system as a whole.
Why its unfair, well from point of view of a node operator there is some FAIRNESS for effort he puts, just like stated above, im reminding You that i DID NOT invented new node registration halting, it was Stroj first so all im poiting is IF they decided to turn it On and OFF, because they stated they want balance, thats they should do it more carefully so i provided a feedback, they were to busy with developing part, its always the same, every part of the project has to speak up for theirs problems : if someone feels payments are too low or something isnt right in theirs view. (node operators, Customers, even devs should tell us when they have problems and ask for help if needed)
I remember not one âoutrageâ here we just speaked up and was listened by storj, storj is listening often its good for business they have to. We speaked up few times here at forum in the past and stroj saw that and we had our extra compenastions, and it was very fair, thats i why i like storj, but we have to speak UP for our selfs just communicate, im not hating anybody. You hating me. âHow dare You to speak up, we donât want rewards! for our effortâ right?
Someone said 0,7TB disc space is unprofitable, then why allow it?
Storj said we can start from 500GB, yes/no?
If 0,7 TB is unproffitable then it is MINNING, (and storj stated its not minning) because only dedicated ppl will make nodes for profit, and as far as i know, the idea is for all the ppl who have minim 500GB free space to contribute? so pick one.
if its Not minning then 0,7TB disc space should be profitable.
and it is, just again, everyting as stated above, can be more, should be more.
A Year ago from 0,7TB i had 0,35 TB egress /mo, now its 0,09-0,19TB.
Why to making more children if You strugle to feed existing ones? all i am talking here, i will keep my nodes, but if situation stay the same i dont if i can stay above water.
I canât tell you exact numbers, but roughly 20-30% is repair egress. So I guess I will still have more than 2 TB ânormalâ egress this monthâŚ
But this is only an estimation and the portion of repair egress compared to normal egress varies a lot from day to day.
I disagree as well, this isnât a race for monthly payouts weâre building a decentralized storage network, the more people the better it is.
3 Likes
tell it to my power supply company, âsorry i wont pay You this month full bill, because im building decentralized storage networkâ hows that sounds? actually im geting enough to pay the bill, but my HDDs are wearing off and i wont have for new ones (used of course) how about that?
Edit: actually i do have for new hdds, because i keept my STORj tokens from first extra surge when STORJ payed 5x, 4x, 3x 2x, but how about You if You are new?
Sometimes discussions are just no use⌠The same arguments are repeated over and over again and most of the time just boil down to a simple argument/motivation:
âI want more money and I donât care where it comes fromâ.
Your long post has so many misconceptions I wonât even start answering every detail, just this:
Yes, setting up a node with 0.7TB just for STORj wonât be profitable. Thatâs why storjlabs says âdonât buy hardware just for storjâ.
Setting up 0.7TB on a machine that runs anyway (like a NAS) and has 1TB free anyway is proftiable in every case.
You can complain all you want, the payout wonât get better and restricting node registration just for giving SNOs more rewards isnt the solution.
Those running unprofitable setups will eventually stop their nodes. Thatâs just how it is.
Are you suggesting on eth communication channels to increase the mining payout so mining on your old gpu in a country with high electricity prices will be profitable again?
As with everything, there will be a balance and it will be determined by cost vs profit.
If there are not enough SNOs, there will be incentives to start nodes like surge payouts etc. If there are too many nodes, the most costly ones will eventually shut down (other than that there is no downside for the network if there are too many nodes).
And now I already used a lot more time than I intended toâŚ
7 Likes
Wooa, excuseme, its far from i have been saying.
My proposal doesnât hurt ANYBODY, because its all about acting responsible.
No one have to spend more for SNO.
No this analogy completly do not fit. We have hdd here, the price per TB stays roughtly the same, no outading performande like graphic cards.
Do You understand that NO ONE loses, i sugeste just stoping making new babies, if You cant feed existing ones. Because the nodes You say :
those nodes You discards so easyli will go and make BAD name out of storage.
i dont think You want a bad PR? do You? Thats why i appeals for responsibility.
Yea great bro, and im trying to avoid that, beacuse thats additional cost for STORJ. So who "donât care where it comes fromâ here?
and will make a bad name out of STORJ, thx, but please no.
There is, because old nodes, will feel that they are not being treated fair compared to efforts they input. As i showe, my long time node getting payed less than 1-1,5 year ago. Thats bad for the morale. Well its not my fault i have to reapet over and over if You dont get it? : its better to have less BUT ENOUGHT node operators happy with payments, than many SNO and all kinda unhappy.
Im sorry for Your time, me too
Right, so only those lose, that would like to be a SNO but kept out of it⌠So itâs not unfair to them that they lost the opportunity just so you can earn more?
So everyone that stops mining ETH because their GPU gets too old or their electricity too expensive will make a bad name out of ETH? (and itâs even worse there as it depends on exchange rates, while STORJ pays in USD equivalent so you can actually plan your setup).
If everyone is kinda unhappy but still on board, then youâve reached the point of balance. Nobody is really happy but not unhappy enough to leave. That is also the point you aim for in every negotiation when buying things on markets. The seller is kinda unhappy but doesnât throw you out and youâre kinda unhappy because youâd like to pay less but not unhappy enough to not buy it.
1 Like
hah,
no, the SNO, that would not join because of temporary stoped recrutation, wonât lose, because they wouldnât get enough either if they joined. They would lose, if they join to the network, where is too much ppl, and too small rewards. And rage quit, losing time and hdds life, i think we dont need to produce unhappy people.
but no one is saying to restraing for everâŚ
Good point at the end, but i dont like it, me as a seller want to be always happy, and im buying low (or inviting a making method so innovate that makes cost of production low) to offer my customer a low price too, so he can be happy too.
So in my scenario i want only that scenario where seller is very happy and a buyer is very happy 
Not really though. The product can easily deal with that and there is actually value to culling some nodes that arenât as invested with the project. The more loyal nodes will stick around and form a more reliable base long term.
Iâm not opposed to rate limiting new nodes in general, but this is clearly not the time to do it. 55%+ of the available space on the network is in use. You want to have enough room for customers to expand and especially considering that Storj is still actively looking for many new customers and existing customers are likely to scale up their usage over time, having plenty of free space is important. And even more, having that free space spread out over many nodes with space available is important too.
I have my suspicion that Storj Labs is actually aiming to keep total network usage around 50% at all times. This was also the assumption of how much of your node would be in use in the original official earnings estimator. It would be too risky to let usage go much further beyond that 50% level. If earnings arenât sufficient for you right now, I think youâre just out of luck, because limiting new nodes would just be bad for the network right now. So income is likely not going to get better until customers start using more egress heavy use cases. All arguments to limit new nodes based on pay simply donât hold up if the network needs to keep growing to remain at that 50% used level.
All of this said, if we do see a wave of people from Chia coming here, I think we may need those rate limiting tools very soon. Your concerns are valid to possible future scenarios for sure, they just donât apply yet right now.
2 Likes
Hi and welcome, jcarlamere. I hope you read closely enough to see, as far as I can tell there is only one individual trying to marginalize new node operators. I think others in this thread all agree â the more the merrier! Glad you got set up. Iâve found these forums very friendly and helpful on the whole.
8 Likes
Hi 01eal - Thanks for the warm welcome. Happy to be part of the community.
2 Likes
Thanks friend. I understand totally. Not looking to get rich - I read about the project recently and believe in the overall goals so I wanted to hop on board. I only allocated a small amount of space to start to test the waters. Been running without issues for a few days now. There is no downside to waiting to allocate space as opposed to allocating all up front ?
2 Likes
No, it makes no difference until the assigned space is full. I would suggest you prevent it from filling up to avoid missing ingress data. But other than that, no thatâs perfectly fine. However, shrinking a node is not really possible, you have to wait for customers to delete data which doesnât really happen much. So if you think youâll need space for other things soon, make sure you leave enough room for that.
3 Likes
I think most people in this conversation feel this is a bad idea. Having a large number of nodes is part of how Storj achieves the redundancy and availability that people are paying it for.
1 Like
Iâm not sure I understand this part. Speaking for myself, I respect an exchange of views and differing perspectives, I appreciate you bringing this up and I think the resulting discussion was informative. I certainly do not hate you or anyone here!
You initially stated you wanted to poll the opinions. While this was of course not a formal âpoll,â I think it is notable that nearly all voices in this discussion have not agreed with your position, but seem more to defer to the judgment of Storj Labs to find the right balance. That doesnât mean youâre wrong that this sort of thing is worth considering, but Iâd suggest it might mean youâre wrong about the general satisfaction level among SNOs.
Again, speaking for myself, I came into this primarily with the expectation that I would learn something about setting up and administering Internet services, a learning process that might lead to a little pocket change, providing an education that I might expect to pay for in another context. So, personally, I am delighted with the results. It will be several months before I receive a penny, but Iâve already profited.
7 Likes
I have a single 7 month old node, with 1.51TB used. My egress is averaging 10GB a day, so 300GB a month. Logically, when I hit the 4.5TB, I should see the 1TB egress a month.
My average ingress for this month, is 12GB a day and the other day I became fully vetted after 7 months, so expect this to rise to 14GB a day for next month. 7 months to go to get to 1TB egress
2 Likes
Do not interfere with market forces. We are governed by how much demand there is for storage and how much it costs to do it. The number of storage nodes will cycle around this and return to equilibrium.
4 Likes
Well, I guess Iâm an idealist after all. Storj says, donât buy new hardware to enter as a node operator. Use old hardware or hardware that you already have. My Synology is on 24/7 anyways and with 4 x 16TB in SHR1 I got 48TB available. Right now I have allocated 3 TB and only 485GB used. Itâs fun to be a part of the network. Nice to have SNOs, but Iâd run it anyways. If you want to become rich, Storj is not the answer.
3 Likes