Storage Node Terms of Service outdated?

The official node operator terms and conditions state: [1]

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, you will not:

  • Operate more than one (1) Storage Node behind the same IP address;

Which seems like it is outdated, as multiple places suggest that it is OK to run multiple storage nodes behind the same IP:

  1. Node support article: How can I set up to run multiple storage nodes?
  2. Hosting Multiple Storage Nodes on the Storj Network

Should the terms be updated to reflect this?

1 Like

They are indeed outdated and this has been mentioned on the forums several times. I believe a long time ago Storj Labs even responded that they were working on updating it but clearly they never got around to it.

The more important part is that you have to use the same payout address on all nodes you operate. Though they seem to have been quite lenient on that as well. But generally it’s to your own best interest to do that anyway as it saves on transaction costs for both sides and in case of L1 payouts helps you hit the threshold quicker.

For what it’s worth, many people from Store Labs have mentioned countless times that it is ok to run more than one node per IP now and even recommend one node per HDD if you want to use multiple HDDs.

1 Like

Anything else that comes to mind in terms that is also outdated?

Not really from the top of my head. A lot of things are not really enforced in practice. Plenty of node operators stop their nodes without running a graceful exit (which is not allowed in T&C). Stork Labs has never made a very big deal out of it though. Nodes only get suspended after online time drops below 60%, T&C says you have to be online 99.3% of the time.

There’s plenty more. However, generally I would recommend following T&C even if they aren’t enforced. To my knowledge the one node per IP is the only exception to that. As that would actually disadvantage both node operator and Storj if you follow that in certain scenarios.

This rule should probably also be relaxed a bit. If one’s wallet does not support zksync/polygon/whatever, yet he wants to try it without necessarily moving all nodes, then a second address shouldn’t be illegal. What do you think, @Alexey?

You cannot prove the owning of different wallets by the same SNO without identity. If you have an access to your identity, you can change a wallet address.

In other words - if the old identity is lost, and you cannot use the same address wallet for other nodes - the payout will stuck on the first one until fees would fall below the threshold.