Actually legally it can’t be interpreted otherwise, because it’s the same sentence. Otherwise, one clause would be posing two constraints which is against unambiguous linguistics. See for example: Quickguide - Interpretation of contracts under English law
Or pertains the last form: it’s a list of purposes to modify the storage node software. Just aside from the fact the other reasons also apply (amigous linguistics if meant this way, contra proferentem). And these principles are quite general in the Western world.
I can tell you, the ToS will probably even be tested and refuted for the fact there are so many sources contradicting the ToS in many ways that SNOs can’t be held to find out which clauses still apply and which don’t. There are even many topics here, dedicated to the fact it’s quite outdated. And even there are no official statements or updates. Even @Alexey isn’t an official representative of Storj.
Besides, that lawsuit will never come. Just find out which SNOs use VPN in the first place. Second, which of them use it for illegal reasons like evading /24-subnet rule and which are using it for condoned reasons like overcoming the constraints of GC-NAT.
Feel free to do so, like everything else it all depends on your particular configuration. I actually use one node per disk, so if they were used in RAID I replaced or extracted them. Essentially, because it’s more profitable and that way I can run multiple nodes within the so-called rules of the ToS.
I never came that across, but I remember topics in which RAID arrays with multiple storage nodes were condoned as a way of running storage nodes. Also for the reason of being more flexible. But more than one node per disk, I can’t remember.
You have, actually you have the advantage of having at least three nodes because you also have access to three IP-adresses (if they are in different /24-subnets).
But in the end, you have to make your own decisions on whether it’s worth the investment of efforts and time for you. But STORJ essentially is a long-term project to become profitable.
And as you appear to be aware, Storj is also still at the start of that long way they still have to go in order to mature a little bit. Legal certainty isn’t their strongest point. And no, they will also not give you privileged treatment of you aren’t fulfilling criteria for professional storage.
Pertaining to your search, as far as I’m aware at this very moment there are not many other services making you more money in the long run. Chia might make you more money short-term, so I think the suggested option above can be quite feasible. Of you have other ideas, feel free to share!
Yeah. I fully expect the new ToS to have a very generic statement allowing Storj Inc. to ban or quarantine any node at any time. After seeing all these discussions dissecting every comma in ToS, I’d do that in their place… And SNOs will still come because it’s still better investment per TB-used than Chia.
This is literally the point of having contracts and agreements.
And when one party dictates and there is no negotiation then the other party will naturally follow the agreement as written, interpreting it as written.
Just want to point something out here… it seems to me that Storj is pretty confident in the networks ability to handle massive geographic outages, so with that said it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that the whole subnet bypassing issue isn’t really a priority for them as the potential risk to the network is so small it’s practically non existent. I would also argue that that very small risk is far outweighed by the fact that larger SNOs are typically running enterprise grade hardware which is more reliable and efficient than consumer hardware, generally have faster connections, have a better understanding of what their doing and a legitimate financial incentive to maintain their equipment and ensure maximum uptime… all of which is good for the network.
I think the real issue most people have regarding this is in terms of fairness to other SNOs. And to that I say no matter how you look at it, it is fair. Running multiple nodes on multiple subnets IS NOT (currently) against the TOS, and there’s quite literally nothing stopping anyone from doing so except your lack of knowledge and / or willingness to take on the additional overhead.
It is not the responsibility of Storj to make sure everything is fair for everyone. Everyone’s situation is different. Maybe your electricity costs are prohibitively high therefore making it unprofitable for you to run nodes at all… maybe you don’t have ‘extra’ space to provide or funds to invest. Maybe you simply don’t have the patients to wait for profitability… maybe you lack the understanding of investing, risk management or the math skills etc to run your own numbers… none of this is the fault or responsibility of Storj. Those with more knowledge and funds always have the advantage, but that isn’t the same thing as fairness.
Storj is continuously trying to reduce their overhead and increase profitability, and the unfortunate truth here is that the only way to do so beyond a certain point is with highly efficient larger scale SNOs. So although many might believe it’s against the ‘spirit’ of Storj, it’s essential for long term profitability and therefore not in the best interest of Storj to prevent this.
Edit:
One last point… yes, Stroj could implement some tactics for identifying those using VPNs etc for this purpose however due to the fact that there are completely legitimate reasons for this (CG-NAT or simply masking their personal IP which is a common practice) and the fact that some SNOs do actually have multiple IPs in different locations there’s no way to do it with 100% accuracy. All this would do is create more problems as many SNOs would get booted due to false positives which WOULD be unfair and lead to more legitimate complaints of unfairness that Storj would need to sort out as they then would be directly responsible for that unfairness. So… Storj COULD just make this against the TOS, but without an accurate way of weeding out those who ignore it, it would put those abiding by the TOS at a disadvantage which WOULD then be unfair.
So, leaving it the way it is is probably the most fair approach Storj could take. This approach is even more effective since large SNOs have no incentive to hide which means Storj mostly knows who’s who. Incentivizing large SNOs to hide would mean they would just create every node with unique email / wallet addresses both further violating the TOS as well as increasing payment transaction costs (paid by Storj) to that many more wallet addresses. It could also be more detrimental to the network assuming Storj already has large SNOs factored into the management of the network. By knowing who the larger SNOs are Storj CAN (I don’t know if they are but it would make sense) factor that into the distribution of the data without creating additional problems caused by trying to weed out larger SNOs, however if all large SNOs look like many individual small ones that tactic can’t be used.
That’s the core of it: the priority is to bring in more paying customers. How large providers are spreading their space over /24’s isn’t even in their top-20 list of concerns.
I like seeing and hearing about how people are running large setups as glorified homelabs: even if some may argue on how they’re using IPs. If you share some pics of your ghetto servers all is forgiven!
An inflexible contract is routed around, not respected. We already see Storj Inc. changing the rules compared to the existing T&C, like allowing more downtime than 99.3%, allowing use of VPNs for CGNAT-hosted nodes, or allowing more than one node behind a single IPv4 address. We effectively have two sets of conditions that nodes have to respect: the set stated in T&C, and the set that is actually in effect in the current network. All the T&C guarantees is that the latter must not be less lenient than the former. What’s more, we have seen Storj Inc. putting a lot of effort to make the effective set of conditions not being changed suddenly, and—in case changes are necessary—are discussed thoroughly on the forum.
Hence it would be the same if T&C basically said we can ban any node any time: as long as the effective set of conditions can be trusted by node operators to not change suddenly and be made in good faith, the situation of node operators does not actually change. In essence, the actual effective conditions do not have to be part of T&C.
