I would say you’re the one who brought up this stupid idea of storing 500-1000 GB for free on every node, so you can profit off it with your specific setup. Don’t play the hero here - this is all about your own self-interest.
I se only you and may be 2-3 more, people complaining about it. Sorry but you are not All big operator.
You dont understand the math it, it is 25k per month. it is 300k per year.
this is not a union this is 2-3 operators that think they rule the network.
Storj needs to cut costs. What they not need is ideas how to reduce the number of nodes or more work for the few remaining devs.
I think a balance is needed here
Sorry, but it’s total … nonsense (I self-censored proper term that came to my mind). Perfect way to prevent new SNO to come. It’s no problem for somene who is SNO for few years, knows that it works, that he receive payments, … Additionally when you have 100 nodes, registration fee for 10 more nodes is just miningless deduction of single month paycheck. To pay money not knowing if it’s real or scam, not knowing if company will exist long enough to pay-back this fee, not knowing if I have skill/infrastructure/… to run node long enough, … Simply big no no IMHO.
So as a result you’ll force just even bigger concentration of data.
And even there is more than enough of free capacity just now/long term, I think that system needs new nodes. It’s distributed system. Milion nodes in one location (one operator, one town - you know what I mean) is much less distributed system, than 1000 nodes operated by 1000 SNO in 1000 towns.
I can multiply by 12, thanks 
What difference does the period make if we’re talking about income/expenses?
because it is 25k a month that can be forwarded to pay a death that company have. can be made some graph for payouts.
As I remember, Storj network was ready that all Russia nodes disapear.
Like many others, you don’t see the difference between “Russia” and “Russian”. “Russian” is a language, by the way. Meanwhile, the largest SNO member I know from our group lives in North America
P.S. It’s strange to explain this on an American forum to a user named Vadim.
I’ve answered this several times, please read. If the price is lowered (like any other change), I (like any rational person) will consider the most profitable option for myself. If it’s more profitable to do a GE, I’ll do it; if it’s more or less the same, I’ll do it too, so as not to ruin my colleagues’ businesses. If management is smart enough to make me pay extra for their decisions, I’ll resign. If management makes it clear to me that they’re deliberately forcing us out (like the 500GB idea), I’ll resign rudely, because respect is a mutual thing.
you can start GE today, because there will be definitely price reduction or 500gb rule may be booth in some numbers. But payouts will be cuted.
Just do your numbers and decide what you do. No need of drama or ultimatums here.
You speak about respect, but you dont respect basic rules, what respect do you want?
I repeat: read before you write. Just a day ago, I explained in a HUGE post why no one is threatening anyone. It’s purely a warning, based on more extensive observation than Storj’s management clearly has.
I readed it all but i do not see any number how it will impact. 500gb was suggested to hold amount of nodes under control. instead of price reduction. 500gb it is 0.75$ a month for a node. when you get rid on /24 it will free you up about 1$ per node.
why i see it is more profitable than price reduction? because it is fixed. rising amount of data , you will get more money. then if will be cutter down each TB price.
Removing that rule will cause node count to go up: and more load on satellites. More online checks. More audits. More repairs. Larger bloom filters. That’s a load on Storj… and the network will be weaker. Less node diversity… and no speed increases to offset it. Almost all the new nodes would be on existing Internet connections and existing storage.
Removing /24 raises costs for Storj, and damages the network. It only decreases costs for SNOs… and… we already have too many SNOs.
Bloom filter size depends on data per node. So more nodes => smaller bloom filters.
Oh my god… that’s it, I refuse to continue this clowning, do whatever you want. triple facepalm
P.S. @Roxor sorry, i missklicked Vadim’s message, but your post is perfect too.
What’s wrong with the idea of simply disabling new node registration? It’s free, it requires zero work, it guarantees a reduction in the number of nodes, it obviously guarantees an increase in their quality, it will improve the current node population, it will increase the loyalty of existing nodes—what else is there to list? And in that “bright future,” when new capacity is needed and the company is saved from bankruptcy, we can calmly and thoughtfully address the issue of expansion. Isn’t this obvious in a situation where everything is already on the brink?
- Block registration to prevent node growth
- Cancel /24 to save money for the SNO
- Reduce tariffs by the amount saved (approximately 15-20%).
That’s it, it’s three clicks for admins, zero risk of network imbalance, and saves the Company money without infringing on the SNO. This is what a proper anti-crisis solution looks like – simple, fast, and secure.
P.S. Oh, I forgot, this doesn’t prevent existing, reliable nodes from being able to increase the available space if the network suddenly runs out. This doesn’t require increasing the number of nodes.