You got that correct. They use the same address as Ethereum just like zkSync. It’s just that some people have set up separate addresses to use with different wallets. Which shouldn’t be necessary to begin with as you can import the same keys into those different wallet apps. I’m pretty sure they also both support wallet connect. So I think it’s more a matter of end users making it more complicated than it has to be.
I think I’ve mentioned it before, but just to throw it out there. With polygon you will have to trust a separate blockchain on top of Ethereum. Unlike zkSync your ownership of tokens isn’t ensured om the Ethereum blockchain until you send them back to L1. For me personally I much prefer zkSync especially if it gets wider adoption and we can avoid sending to L1. At least then my ownership is guaranteed on the Ethereum blockchain within 10 minutes after receiving payment.
There wasn’t a community vote, though it was discussed prior to implementation. However I remember that it was a fairly easy option to implement that didn’t compromise on trust. See also the caveats I mentioned above.
I must have missed that… Pretty sure lots of SNOs still get L1 payouts.
But it should also be noted that it wasn’t a well known fact that the payment option was an array or we can use any array elements we want. Most of us want to run a node, get paid and not have to deal with “you have misconfigured your node so no payment this month, wait for next payout”.
I checked the implement of the payment system. Current system pays on zksync if any of the list element is zksync and pays on ethereum in any other case. It’s safe to add unsupported strings to show the demand.
So, is the list meant to be an ordered list… 1st preference being listed first?
Yes, that’s the intention, but the current logic is what I wrote above. Independent from your preference if any of the items is zksync, zksync will be used (the preference of operator)
So does that mean polygon is a supported payout though? I don’t see like if you opt into zksync in the payouyt method on the dashboard. It doesnt forward you to the polygon explorer like zksync did.
No, it’s not supported yet.
I agree with @littleskunk that the best way to vote for new option is using this flag of the storagenode and I also agree with the concerns that if it’s the official way, it should be communicated better. I am cheking if it can be the official way and added the the SNO payment FAQ.
yeah it surely does seem like there is no good solutions, any good solution becomes popular and with that goes down the drain because of inability to keep pace with demand.
its no wonder storj is reluctant to change their approach because it seems no matter what one does its a feeble attempt to stop the unavoidable.
By Mike Lennon on February 15, 2015
…
Through its investigations to date, the security company said it has evidence of roughly $300 million being stolen by the cybercriminals, but believes the total could be upwards of $1 billion.
The criminal gang, dubbed “Carbanak” by the Moscow-based security firm, appears to be a group of cybercriminals from Russia, Ukraine and other parts of Europe and China.
…
Anunak is the name the malware author gave to the main malware used in these attacks, while Carbanak is the name the AV industry gave to the malware, which is a combination of the words “Anunak” and “Carberp”, as the Anunak malware has used code from Carberp, Fox-IT said.
…
The attacks, which are still active according to Kaspersky, focused mainly on banks in Russia, but were also successful against banks in Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland, United States and other countries.
…
According to the report, one victim lost roughly $7.3 million due to ATM fraud, and another lost $10 million as a result of attackers exploiting its online banking platform.
One example among thousands.
The business, banking, retail sectors have Huge losses due to theft, security issues, failure to perform basic OpSec procedures, and – well – just being humans designing systems or adhering to flawed rule sets.
It’s not that simple. No code is without problems. How problems are dealt with as they arise is a good sign to tell how good a company is with security issues. You can try to hold blockchains to a higher standard and to some extent we should, but they are still made by flawed humans and it’s unavoidable that there will be mistakes.
There is however a lot of value to a more established blockchain where these kinks are more likely to already be worked out. And you can’t really get around the fact that you end up having to trust both ethereum and polygon if you go that route.
Old code can be run on your own node if you don’t agree with any given hard fork. It might not interact well with anyone else… but it will run.
Trust is required for those who aren’t looking at the code. It’s probably not something most people can or will take the time to do… but, the source code is available for inspection, review, and modification by anyone on the planet. The blockchain itself is mathematical proof of the source code.
The problem with Polygon vs. zkSync is the ability to transfer tokens to Ethereum Mainnet. In zkSync, the tokens never actually leave Ethereum Mainnet. In Polygon, there’s a requirement of a Bridge between the blockchains. However, if exchanges interact with Polygon directly, then the zkSync rollup “security” is moot for anyone using a supported centralized crypto exchange.
Starting to happen… randomly found news story link:
That’s nothing more than a side step. You still need to trust that 2 blockchains have no issues instead of having to trust just one that is more settled at this point. Also, it’s not realistic for an individual to do a full code review on 2 entire blockchains just because they want to use the blockchain, so the source being available doesn’t really matter at all. I’ve probably seen more of the source code for Storj than most, but I still rely mostly on trust because there is way too much code for me to audit it all.
If you choose to pay out to a centralized exchange directly that’s a whole other level of trust as you don’t even own the tokens then…
Of course, I agree with you on the general statement. However, the aggregate number of eyes on the code does in fact make the code more secure… consider as evidence of my statement the 24 hour fix across Polygon of the coding error along with the whitehat groups pointing out the coding error.
So, it’s not really “trust in Polygon” … it’s “trust” in the ecosystem. And, I’m mostly comfortable with that level of trust. Especially considering the massive security and technical issues in every single other industry - legacy financial as well as all infrastructure… including pedestrian overpass bridges in various places.
I’m not advocating, nor stated, that anyone should accept payout of STORJ directly to a centralized exchange. However, the Polygon blockchain is now interfaced with some centralized exchanges.
So, for individuals who collect STORJ on an individual wallet address, if Polygon was a payout option… those individuals would not be required to access Ethereum Mainnet in order to convert their STORJ to other crypto or fiat. They could simply transfer the tokens to be converted to their centralized exchange account… which is always a requirement for converting to fiat – read as, “legacy bank deposit”
That’s exactly what I mean. You just need to trust 2 ecosystems instead of one. And at the moment I would rank Ethereum higher on the trust scale to begin with. Even if you never send your tokens back to L1, polygon still relies on Ethereum. If Ethereum implodes, so does polygon. If polygon implodes, it’s bye bye tokens on polygon. This is not the case with zkSync. If zkSync would disappear completely, you still have access to your tokens using the alternative withdrawal directly on the Ethereum main net. Hence polygon requires you to trust both ecosystems, while zkSync relies on the trust of Ethereum itself alone.
I have to update on the polygon network and im not very impressed with how its performing right now its actually much worse then ETH right now on how much transfers it can handle. For now its not looking promising as a platform to use for payments for storj. This doesnt give me any indication that ETH 2.0 is going to fix anything if anything it will make it worse then it is now because POS is completely crap compared to POW… If you track the gas for polygon its at 100% usage and nothing is able to transfer.
