I get that contributing to the code is not for everyone. I am on the list for a very tiny bugfix I contributed quite a while ago now, but I don’t have the Go skills and time to invest in building larger features either. That doesn’t mean I can’t help in some way. Storj Labs is incredibly open to community input and this shows in several ways.
I would say it’s definitely not most changes. Most originate from backlogs that were generated internally and features Storj Labs came up with themselves. But that doesn’t mean community input doesn’t play a big role as well.
I’ve personally posted 4 suggestions.
- 2 of them have been implemented
Report audit suspension scores back to node databases, API, and dashboard - #3
Realistic earnings estimator - #73 by asturking << This one originally advocated for the removal of the inaccurate calculator. I use it now as a place to link to for my own alternative. - 1 is currently being worked on
Make the node crash with a fatal error if the storage path becomes unavailable - #9 by Alexey << this one btw will fix the issue your original post was about, link to the change is in that topic. - 1 has not been implemented, but alternative changes have pretty much solved the underlying problem
Limit node transfers through node selection - #60
In short, Storj is very responsive to these requests. The system works.
Additionally I think showing what we want as a community with third party tools is not a bad thing either. The earnings calculator I built showed the kind of information SNOs would want to see, and I’m betting it’s not a coincidence that the later implemented payouts pages on the dashboard have a suprisingly similar layout and terminology. (I made it no secret that I hoped my earnings calculator in the end would no longer be needed and Storj Labs was free to use any ideas from it)
So that’s another way that these separate initiatives end up making the core product better.
And then there are many less clear ones. Just discussions popping up around specific topics that get picked up and improved. I’ve pointed out specific segments of code for node age calculation, I thought had an issue, which got fixed in the next update. But if you don’t build the code yourself, you do agree that it’s up to Storj Labs to prioritize and implement. And you should also give them the time to do that. They iterate pretty quickly, but you can’t expect fixes to be available within a few days. That’s not how software development works. But generally a few weeks actually has been enough time for them to fix major issues so far.
In general I’m really happy with how this community can contribute even without direct code contributions. I appreciate that Storj Labs is not entirely happy yet and wants to do even better. But if you ask me, they’re already doing a pretty damn good job with this.