We had this discussion before, and I wholeheartedly disagree again with you on this part because running a VPN client is not modifying the storage node software.
This very section is only related to adapting the Storage Node Software, defined in section 1.5 as “Storage Node Software” means the Storage Node Software which, when installed on a Device, enables such Device to participate in the Storage Network. which section 2.2 clarifies, by starting (...) The Storage Node Software consists of open source code and is made available to you pursuant to the terms of the open-source license agreement(s) located at https://github.com/storj/storj/blob/master/LICENSE (the “Open Source License(s)”). (...) which obviously only refers to the Storage Node executable, this license pertains to.
So legislatively, is quite BS again. Although, it’s obviously against the spirit of the STORJ concept. But apparently the harm of it isn’t enough so it’s not getting any priority, it’s not enforceable or it’s just laziness resulting in no adaptations of the ToS since this discussion started of in this forum.
But again, it’s clear as crystal that the ToS doesn’t cover the whole topic in article 4.1.3, and I’m actually starting to think you’re quite aware.
It’s not against the ToS.
Sure, since apparently many are using VPN for other reasons than GC-NAT or security (not exposing own IP) but for circumventing the /24-rule. So it has been discussed many times, because for obvious reasons for feels like unfair that more skilled people can quite easily circumvent this rule. Although, they might be also better in running such nodes because of the same skills.
But screaming all over that’s it against the ToS, referring sections about changing STORJ-licensed software doesn’t do this discussion any good.
It’s against the spirit of the concept of STORJ, but don’t look at the operators using VPN for any reason. But look at the writers of the ToS.
Don’t know what you’re exactly meaning by HA, but the whole essence like unskilled / non-professional dedicated people running nodes with cumulative big space and insufficient safeguards also circumventing the /24-rule is very unappealing. I completely agree. But again, those who want to do so and have enough skills will do so. And at this point of time, ToS isn’t saying a word about it, aside from the aforementioned points on whether it’s enforceable and so on.
Although I did the math in a previous post, and the probability of ending up with multiple pieces of the same file at one SNO is still very low. It needed quite extreme figures to pose a real risk. But aside from that, I still think it’s also from perspective of fairness aan unwanted scenario.
I haven’t said so, so please abstain from putting me words in my mouth. The only thing I know is that the TS has 144TB, which is unlikely just one disk. So my point is that it’s probably more profitable to not RAID them or whatever (also not RAID0/5/6), but running one node per disk which is the smallest possible amount.