Honestly, not sure. But there is a chance for that. I didn’t see their detailed requirements, but I think that I heard, that US DCs were mentioned too. Maybe only because it’s a strong connection with “SOC2 Type II” and “US DCs”.
I don’t know. I think if that idea: “The $STORJ community buyout: what we are proposing, why, and how it would work” wold work, the Community may have a vote or lead some departments and do things like most of Community votes.
Ya’ll realize that the former CEO came from Vivant, was in charge of sales, they retired the CEO to chairman, he took the CEO job, then gave the Vivint clientelle to Storj on the concept of the public network, got in power - only then did they (Vivant) demanded a new ‘performant’ Select network. Afterwards, I think he went back to Vivint. It’s called a corporate raid, and they were prolly all given nice golden parachutes, wasting capital.
Disclaimer: the above is an entirely fictitious accounting… no doubt, hey. I’m not slandering here, just sayin’ hey maybe that’s a possibility that y’all should research into.
2 cents,
Julio
Please try to prove your claims. Public Network and Select existed before he became CEO. They were created under the previous leader.
We didn’t acquire their clients; they are our clients. We don’t work with consumers, and you know that for a fact.
Select surfaced after the contract had been signed, when they went to approve it with their security team.
Why make up stories? What’s the benefit?
You never cease to amaze with your interpretations.
Clients, as the collective whole of Vivint’s clients.
It is a strategic management decision. But it is not like compliance certification requirements came suddenly out of nothing. It was clear from the beginning (and asked many times), that they are crucial to be a realistic option for governments, public offices and large enterprises, Storj was and still is interested in. There is a reason all other cloud providers have them.
So they would have had plenty of time to go that route. Of course they didn’t and at the end they chose the fast route.
The problem is, now we hear something like this:
So now the reasoning is: As we have Select, we don’t really need SOC2 for the public network. That’s where the original decision turns into negative effects for the public network. Imagine Vivint on the public network and maybe even Cloudwave
We still want it, it’s not removed from the table as far as I know, many preparations were done, I don’t believe that this would be thrown. It would be very unwise.
@Alexey Алексей, обращусь персонально к вам на нашем общем родном языке, потому что искренне не понимаю, как можно было настолько неправильно прочитать то, что я писал. Уберем хотя-бы языковой барьер.
Итак, по пунктам:
Мы (террористы, лол) - люди, которые потратили годы и многие тысячи долларов на создание своих сетапов, обладаем достаточными для этого навыками и интересами, поэтому совершенно логично мы начали общаться в удобной нам форме, а не на неудобном и модерируемом форуме. Это “клуб по интересам”, а не террористическая ячейка.
Никто никому ничем не “угрожал”, я всего лишь сообщил, что у нас большое комьюнити людей с очень большим количеством данных, и мы считаем деньги (свои деньги). И что для большого количества из нас текущий ценник уже является нижней границей рентабельности, а следовательно - если он будет снижен, часть из нас ВЫНУЖДЕНЫ будут уйти. И часть выйдет без ГЕ, просто потому что так будет выгоднее. Не потому, что мы хотим навредить сети, а потому что мы, как и Стордж, просто считаем деньги. Банально сейчас есть ощущение, что ГЕ просто не выплатят из-за суда. Вы просто перепутали предупреждение и угрозу. Реальность - я предупредил, что многие уйдут, потому что каждый сам для себя будет принимать это решение, у нас нет никаких обязательств перед компанией, как и у компании перед нами. Вы вправе снижать тарифы, мы вплане отказаться по ним работать, где тут угроза? Если при этом у сети будут проблемы, это будет не вина ушедших, а вина компании, которая не умеет считать и не слышит даже крупных “подрядчиков”. Это баланс прав, рулите вы, но мы можем отказаться ехать, все честно.
Если вы хотели построить сеть на базе альтруистов, которые готовы работать бесплатно (как “кролики”), то поздравляю - у вас не получилось. Опять пришли злые капиталисты и “захватили” ваши данные. А вы (как и те, кто пишут про готовность работать хоть за 0, хоть за 1 доллар/Тб) просто не понимаете, как работает ваш же продукт, что сейчас стало совершенно очевидным, и именно поэтому мы пытаемся открыть вам глаза.
Отдельно пройдусь по так понравившейся вам идее про бесплатные 500Гб. Напомню вам, что весь спор ведется вокруг одной единственной общей идеи - снижения доходности от деятельности СНО. Стартовая точка - ваша (компании) идея просто снизить тариф. Наш ответ - это станет невыгодно и придется закрывать лавочку, как альтернатива - предложили сэкономить на плате за лишние адреса, Андрей вам прямо писал, что 1.25$ при условии отмены /24 условно приемлемы, просто потому, что сумма снижения тарифов примерно равна расходам на адреса и одно компенсирует другое. В ответ пошли совершенно справедливые рассуждения, как при этом избежать проблем с ростом количества нод итд итп. И тут вылезает гений, предлагающий добавить бесплатные 500-1000Гб. Вот какой уровень непонимания ситуации должен быть? Неужели не очевидно, что это точно такой же отъем денег у СНО, ведущий к точно тем же самым проблемам с нерентабельностью? Зачем тогда городить весь этот огород? Решение, позволяющее отменить /24 по определению не может быть “платным”, иначе в этом теряется весь смысл. Например лично для меня бесплатные 500Гб/ноду нанесут еще больший (фатальный) ущерб рентабельности, потому что большая часть нод маленькие ради большей гибкости. И такая ситуация у большинства.
Ваш фетиш на 1 нода/диск очень умилителен конечно, но вы забываете простейшие вещи: Мало кто использует диски меньше 10-12Тб, просто из-за цены электричества, диск на 16-20тб жрет столько же, сколько на 4Тб. При этом прекрасно переваривает пяток нод с отличной отзывчивостью. А дорастить ноду до такого размера практически невозможно с текущим трафиком, особенно если ты не сидишь прямо около сателлита в США. Вывод - использование 1 ноды на диск просто невозможно, нерентабельно. Реальная цифра при использовании соло-дисков - 3-6 нод/диск, с последующим увеличением количества дисков по мере роста нод. Именно отсюда у вас “рост количества нод несмотря на снижение тарифов”, про который так любят писать “кролики”. Это те же самые СНО и диски, только нод у них все больше и больше, чтобы выжить. Это невыгодно и вам и нам, но иначе не работает, математика не сойдется. Я бы с удовольствием имел 1 утилиту и 1 адрес на весь сервер и все диски в нем, но вместо этого у меня их сотня на каждом сервере. И я еще переплачиваю за РАМ и процессорное время в итоге, а вы не контролируете, где лежат куски. Сама архитектура ошибочна, увы, она действительно рассчитана только на ЮСБ+распберри сетапы из мусора или ворующих по мелочи у работодателя место админов. Ну а еще половина СНО использует массивы, а не соло-диски, так что это правило становится еще более бессмысленным. Это правило устарело, просто примите это.
Насчет распределенности - даже лично у одного меня это не один шкаф в одном месте, а четыре отдельных локации в разных районах города, по банальной причине - никто не даст многогигабитный канал в жилую квартиру. А ребята из нашего чата живут в разных городах и странах, даже на разных континентах. Так что с распределенностью нет никаких проблем, есть лишь несовпадение реальной физической сети (размеров физических узлов) с вашими представлениями о ней и, соответственно, с реализацией отказоустойчивости на уровне алгоритма. Мы (крупные СНО) своего рода переходная стадия от юсб+распберри к Селекту, и пока что старая система балансировки прекрасно работала, хоть и крайне неэффективно с точки зрения ресурсов. Что же касается наших “единовременных решений отключить оборудование”, то это просто неправда, никто никому ничего не навязывает, каждый решает сам и считает свои деньги, я об этом писал в п.2. Нет никакой разницы, примут решение уйти 100 больших СНО или 10000 маленьких, если тариф окажется ниже рентабельности.
У вас, похоже, сложилось ощущение, что все за снижение тарифов, и только наша группа против. (Сейчас еще ожидаем всплеск русофобии 
) Однако, мы банально не знаем о существовании других подобных групп, а они наверняка есть. Многие из крупных СНО, которые писали за последнюю неделю, не из нашей группы, они сами по себе. Так что не надо думать, что все, кто промолчал, точно согласны. Думаю, что мы просто единственные, кто заявили о себе. Ну, или если мы действительно крупнейшее сообщество СНО - тогда наше мнение должно быть для компании еще важнее.
Резюмируя - постарайтесь услышать нас, а не обзываться и обвинять в саботаже. И постарайтесь понять фундаментальную причину спора (рентабельность быть СНО), тогда “гениальные” идеи про бесплатное место сами собой пропадут. Если вы хотите снижать тариф - ок, но тогда придумайте, как это компенсировать, или не удивляйтесь оттоку желающих на вас работать.
P.S. члены нашего сообщества одобрили мое желание выразиться от лица всех, но я не являюсь руководителем или даже крупнейшим СНО, у нас равноправие, мы просто группа независимых энтузиастов.
Automatic translation for everyone else, may contain inaccuracies, because I don’t have the energy to reread it in English, sorry 
Alexey, I’ll address you personally in our common language, because I sincerely don’t understand how someone could have so misread what I wrote. Let’s at least remove the language barrier.
So, point by point:
We (terrorists, lol) are people who have spent years and many thousands of dollars creating our setups, and we have the skills and interests to do so, so it’s perfectly logical that we began communicating in a format convenient for us, rather than on an inconvenient and moderated forum. This is a “club of interests,” not a terrorist cell.
No one “threatened” anyone; I simply stated that we are a large community of people with a huge amount of data, and we are counting money (our money). And that for many of us, the current price tag is already the lower limit of profitability, and therefore, if it is lowered, some of us will be FORCED to leave. And some will leave without GE, simply because it will be more profitable. Not because we want to harm the network, but because we, like Storj, are simply counting the money. It’s simply a feeling right now that the GE will simply not be paid because of the lawsuit. You’ve simply confused a warning with a threat. The reality is, I warned that many would leave because everyone would make their own decision. We have no obligations to the company, just as the company has no obligations to us. You have the right to lower tariffs, but we plan to refuse to work under them. Where’s the threat in that? If the network experiences problems, it won’t be the fault of those who left, but the fault of the company, which doesn’t know how to count and doesn’t listen even to large “contractors.” It’s a balance of rights: you’re in charge, but we can refuse to go, all fair and square.
If you wanted to build a network based on altruists willing to work for free (like “rabbits”), then congratulations – you failed. Evil capitalists have come again and “seized” your data. You (like those who write about being ready to work for $0/TB or even $1/TB) simply don’t understand how your product works, which has now become completely obvious, and that’s why we’re trying to open your eyes.
I’ll separately address the idea you so favored about the free 500GB. Let me remind you that the entire debate revolves around a single, common idea: reducing the profitability of SNO operations. The starting point is your (the company’s) idea to simply lower the tariff. Our response is that this will become unprofitable and we’ll have to close up shop. As an alternative, you suggested saving on the fee for extra addresses. Andrey directly wrote to you that $1.25, subject to the abolition of /24, is conditionally acceptable, simply because the tariff reduction is roughly equal to the costs of the addresses, and one offsets the other. In response, you’ve received perfectly reasonable arguments about how to avoid problems with the growing number of nodes, etc. And then a genius pops up, proposing to add free 500-1000GB. What level of misunderstanding must this be? Isn’t it obvious that this is exactly the same kind of money-grabbing scheme for the SNO, leading to the same problems of unprofitability? Why then make such a fuss? A solution that eliminates /24 can’t be “paid” by definition; otherwise, it would defeat the whole purpose. For example, for me personally, free 500GB/node would cause even greater (fatal) damage to profitability, because most nodes are small for the sake of greater flexibility. And this is the situation for most people.
Your obsession with 1 node/disk is certainly endearing, but you’re forgetting the most basic things: Few people use disks smaller than 10-12TB, simply because of the cost of electricity. A 16-20TB disk consumes as much memory as a 4TB one. And yet, it handles five nodes perfectly well with excellent responsiveness. Growing a node to that size is practically impossible with current traffic, especially if you’re not located right next to a US satellite. The bottom line is that using one node per disk is simply impossible and unprofitable. The real figure when using solo disks is 3-6 nodes per disk, with the number of disks subsequently increasing as the nodes grow. This is where the “node growth despite tariff reductions” that the “rabbits” so often write about comes from. It’s the same old SNO and disks, only they need more and more nodes to survive. This is unprofitable for both you and us, but there’s no other way; the math just won’t work. I’d love to have one utility and one address for the entire server and all the disks on it, but instead I have hundreds of them on each server. And I’m still overpaying for RAM and CPU time, and you have no control over where the pieces are stored. The architecture itself is flawed, unfortunately. It’s really only designed for USB-Raspberry setups made from junk or admins who steal from their employers. And half of the SNOs use arrays, not single drives, making this rule even more pointless. This rule is outdated, just accept it.
Regarding distribution—even for me, it’s not just one cabinet in one place, but four separate locations in different parts of the city, for the simple reason that no one will provide a multi-gigabit link to a residential apartment. And the guys in our chat live in different cities and countries, even on different continents. So, there’s no problem with distribution; there’s just a mismatch between the actual physical network (the sizes of the physical nodes) and your expectations of it, and, consequently, with the implementation of fault tolerance at the algorithmic level. We (large SNOs) are a kind of transitional stage from USB + Raspberry to Select, and so far the old balancing system has worked fine, albeit extremely inefficient in terms of resources. As for our “one-time decisions to turn off equipment,” that’s simply not true. No one is forcing anything on anyone; everyone decides for themselves and counts their money, as I wrote about in point 2. It makes no difference whether 100 large SNOs or 10,000 small ones decide to leave if the rate is below breakeven.
You seem to have the impression that everyone is in favor of lowering rates, and only our group is against it. (We’re still expecting a surge in Russophobia ) However, we simply don’t know about other similar groups, and they probably exist. Many of the large SNOs who wrote over the past week aren’t from our group; they’re on their own. So don’t assume that everyone who remained silent agrees. I think we’re simply the only ones who’ve spoken up. Or, if we truly are the largest SNO community, then our opinion should be even more important to the company.
To sum it up: try to hear us out, instead of calling us names and accusing us of sabotage. And try to understand the fundamental reason for the dispute (the profitability of being a SNO), then the “brilliant” ideas about free space will naturally disappear. If you want to lower your rates, fine, but then figure out how to compensate for it, or don’t be surprised by the loss of people willing to work for you.
P.S. Members of our community have approved of my desire to speak on behalf of everyone, but I’m not the leader or even the largest SNO. We’re an equal society; we’re simply a group of independent enthusiasts.
You’re such a large, well-organised group of clever people, and you have such extensive equipment resources, that it’s high time you moved on from here and used them to launch your own satellites and offer your own business solutions – after all, business rules the world
Just don’t make the same mistakes as Storj.
Вы — такая огромная организованная группа умных людей и располагаете такими огромными материально-техническими ресурсами, что уже пора уйти отсюда и использовать их для запуска собственных спутников и предложения собственных бизнес-решений — ведь бизнес правит миром
Только не повторяйте тех же ошибок, что и Storj
By the way, we discussed this during a brainstorming session. But it would be pointless; it would require a duplicate company with its own management, marketers, salespeople, and support, competing for market share with the “original” company. Ultimately, everyone would be worse off. It would be much better if Storj itself finally understood what they’d created and how it works, rather than stubbornly trying to adhere to old rules that don’t work.
We can only hope that what remains of Storj (the owner realised what he’d done, took the money and disappeared) is working hard to rectify the design flaws that have arisen in the operation of this data storage platform. But there’s now an opportunity to snap up the ruins of this company on the cheap – perhaps you’ll buy it out, and there’ll be no need to share the market?
Sorry, who am I to be telling you entrepreneurs how to run a business…
I don’t think there would be a lot of competion. Storj is mainly on the US and partially on the EU market. Asia not so much. Go for it.
Beside that. Its always fun to eat your own dog food. Lets see if your plan with a better marketing team that pays for itself in no time really works.
At the end more competition means we can all learn from each other and improve the overall network. We want to fight the big cooperations and every customer on your satellite will help adopting this new technology.
Ok lets say you are running your own satellite and I am telling you to shutdown my nodes without GE. That would clearly be a thread.
The better solution that I would ask you to do is this:
Step 1: I start GE and you tell me by the end of the week if enough segments have been repaired so that I can shutdown my nodes.
Step 2: I take my nodes offline but without deleting the data yet. I give you again time to check if no customer data has been lost. If something is wrong I bring my nodes back online.
Step 3: No complains after a few days of downtime? Now I would delete the data.
The repair checker is able to report these numbers and it does about twice per day. Lets say once per day because the other cycle would be at night when the person that can read the report is sleeping. So even for bigger node operators this would take just a few days at most. A nice and clean shutdown with no customer data at risk. Thats the solution that doesn’t sound like a thread.
The key word in this message was “pointless”.
As a quick and safe exit option, this sounds quite reasonable (with the hold return compliance, as stated in normal GE), but it seems to me that it would be better not to let the SNO get to this point.
Why not? There is already one person working on setting up a satellite. Team up with him and share the workload. Now the initial setup cost is cut in halve. Even more because most of the work is already done by him.
Next you would need some marketing and you have expressed with utmost certainty that you have a solution for that part. 1M per quarter was the number you claimed to be possible. Don’t get me wrong. You might be right that it is pointless. I will leave that judgement up to you. I would appreciate if you could apply the same judgement on any other satellite operator. If you can’t hit that 1M per quarter than maybe the number is a bit unrealistic.
Wonderful. I don’t think I can offer the held back return. That would take a bit too much manual labor. The best I can do is maybe lower the normal GE time to something like 2 weeks. So fast partially graceful within a few days but no payment or 2 weeks. Don’t take that as an offer. I would have to discuss that internally first.
You’ve got me confused with someone else. I never said anything like that, nor did I ever talk about new satellites. And anyway, I don’t think now is the right time for these conversations.
Obviously, you should discuss this with your team. You need to understand that if someone wants to leave quickly, they’ll need a reason why it’s more beneficial for them to engage in GE than simply pulling the plug. Under normal circumstances, this is clearly stated in the rules, but if the rules change abruptly without warning, the situation can change, and you’re a vested interest.
You are right. My fault. My apology for that part. That 1M statement was from a different user and now that I look it up it turns out the user name was not even close. Not sure how that happend. Again my apology.
Well that makes it a thread again. I can’t agree on that. Either the held back amount is not worth it. In that case we can go the fast exit route and come up with a plan to minimize the risk for the customers. Or the held back amount is worth it and we take the standard GE route maybe with a shorter duration as a compromise.
So, a shortened period solves the problem, if it’s technically possible—then why even bother with that month? And a separate question: are the promises of a held refund after the GE still valid?
Stats say less than 10 percent did GE. In my opinion this is a remains from the past that could be removed without replacement. Very much like /24 rule and vetting.
i mean, for example my nodes dont even have any held amout worth the game, all was returned long ago (all my nodes are from like 2019-2020) I guess old nodes did not accumulated big held amounts. If this month there will be no pay, that would be a good point to start paying with delay, instead of held amount.
i once wrote:
that could work even more complementary if combined with low egress $ rate
This is broken on at least two levels – but I can’t think of a good solution.
The collateral-in-escrow to participate was discussed before, but this just changes the funding method, the actual problem is that this collateral today does not drive the behaviour of rational operators.