That would depend on how it gets deleted, since that hasn’t even been discussed yet, I can’t give you an answer.
Hi
I dont agree with the changes, can you remove the gracefull exit minimum time please temporarily, so I can initiate the command. Atm saying Im not allowed to leave.
Or is it saying because I can exit only 1 node at the time.
2 Likes
I think it will be fair to remove restrictions about GE that people who want exit can make it, not just turn off nodes.
@john what do you think about it?
1 Like
Its kind of a law her in the uk (not sure for the us), if you change things mid contract ( lets say contract is you cant GE for min 6months ) you need to announce the changes with plenty of notice ( 1month + i believe ) with the starting date, and until that anyone can leave the contract without punishment. After due date you pretty much agreed with changes.
In the future this might get you in troble in some places if you do the way you did it now. So yeah I would like to recover the witheld amount, no hard feelings 
will be back when demand is higher
2 Likes
And it has to be worth for a SNO to operate a STORJ node at first place!
So if there is little or no egress for SNOs anyway, i’m just submitting ideas to You on how this goal could be achieved in such conditions, to still benefit STORJ network and customers equally.
So please, don’t act like there wasn’t a tons of conversations in last 30 days about it, like it didn’t happened. Its been clarified, that in the case, if egress would not be main source of payment for SNOs, there would be anti-cheat mechanisms necessary in place, to enforce rules.
And about if its possible to do it right: anything can be done in programming, it’s not about what is possible, but about the will to do it.
That’s just some idea.
Because in hosting, whats most important for customers is cost of traffic.
The less egress costs, the more attractive the offer is to customers.
if customer pays $4/TB/mo storage and $7/TB/mo download, total $11/TB/mo for 1TB
its better for him to pay less, obviously.
e.g: $6 and $5, still $11/TB/mo, but he can do more with the file for the same money when at scale. its more attractive. Just and example.
Maybe it should be more like $6-7/storage and $2-4/egress for customers.
If no change in 2.75 redundancy of a file.
And simultaneously its more vital for SNOs, if one e.g. gets $22/mo for a node of 7TB size, to get majority of that from storage. About reasoning behind this, i don’t want to repeat what has been already written here on forum before in last 30 days. Just don’t act like it didn’t happen, please!
1 Like
It’s also more efficient and causes less traffic and fewer emissions.
Also, I have a bridge for sale in NYC if you’re interested.
Let them do business. SNOs part is to provide storage with egress on the set, though subject to change, payment rates. You either accept that or not. All you should do is inform how it affects you, not try to extrapolate your case on all other SNOs. This adds nothing to the conversation.
When you suggest to make storage payment higher, but lower egress one, that’s what you are saying. @Knowledge or anyone else doesn’t have to know what you specifically have said in the past few weeks. Even more, they simply DON’T KNOW what’s your understanding about the topic. So they see X, they respond to X. Now, if you wanted to suggest that there could be some sort of misbehaviour detection, why not start your messages with that? Bring others to your level of thoughts and understanding first - we don’t know what’s in your head.
It could look like this:
“@Knowledge, based on my own nodes and cost of operation, I would be fine with lowering the egress payment, though preferably with increasing the storage one. I saw other SNOs mentioning they have similar stance, so maybe this is more widespread. I understand that egress payment cannot go strictly to zero to avoid the highest abuses, but have Storj Labs considered having such behaviour be detectable and just penalized in such scenario?”
So basically:
- Briefly describe your situation/stance
- Bring up some facts about SNOs you saw in the threads
- Suggest there might be more - not a hard statement, just “perhaps”
- Proceed with your suggestion/question…
- …but without things like “it’s better to do X”, “storj should do Y”
8 Likes
No, because it’s just my opinion, i can say STORJ “should do this” or “this is better”, because it’s only my opinion. NO ONE have to consider my opinion. And no one should tell anyone how to express his/shes opinion. That’s my way of expressing, if You dont like it, ignore it please. i have very limited time, and strong believes in whats right to do, when ideas come to me, so i spelling them best i can. English is not my prime language as well.
My frustration on other hand is that someone like user “KNOWLEDGE” here, should know every idea that was given in previous 600 or 800 post discussion, every single one, if hes a leader here on forum, and should not make disparaging statements about any of them. Because to me? it looks like searching for excuses, rather than solution. Lets look for solution. Because after May1, there will be no profitable egress anyway (no egress from customers, and egress what is still there will be slashed from $20 to $10 or even to $1,50) and what You gonna do with Your nodes? Would like STORJ to succeed, been 3 years on and off here, saw fantastic helpful people here, i love it here, but It’s NOT looking good.
2 Likes
Just so you know. Right now I know of commercial offers of non-redundant storage at 0.97 USD/TB with unlimited egress included, hosted at proper data centers, that are profitable for the provider. Worst case, Storj Inc. will just take advantage of these offers, as opposed to paying for overpriced storage set up on RPis at consumer ISPs.
And what are you going to do?
1 Like
I’ve said before that I can go down to $1 per TB per month and I have 0.5PB available.
Ok, now I offer 0.97$ TBm, unlimited egress. 
It seems there is already more repair traffic than usual.
How does GE traffic appear as in the logs?
I would like this to be addressed, implemented ASAP so I can finish GE on all nodes before the next payrun, thanks
I’ve updated the earnings calculator to be able to show per satellite payout rates and include per satellite split information for storage, egress and repair. Hopefully this will aid SNOs in making (graceful) exit decisions once the pew payout rates go into effect.
Note that at present, test satellites have barely any egress to begin with, so the impact of these announced changes may be low until that changes.
5 Likes
My so called disparaging statement was, “To the SNO’s who keep saying they don’t care about Egress pricing. If Egress is not profitable for SNO’s, they will reduce the speed of their nodes, which hampers the overall network. It has to be worth it for a SNO to offer maximum bandwidth in order to earn on Egress.”
I don’t see that as disparaging, rather I was stating a fact, and it was not aimed at you or any commenter specifically.
While you may think that coming up with a technical solution would solve that, it is not that easy. The node software is open source, so anything there can be altered by the node operator. This then would require the Satellite to monitor performance, but how would it know that you normally have gigabit Internet speeds, but have reduced it to 64k? It can’t know that. That’s why we have financial incentives for bandwidth usage.
Thank you for your concern in my thoroughness to have read all the responses in all of the payout discussions. I have. I was referencing the previous payout discussions where some users had noted that they didn’t care about being paid for egress at all, and just wanted a base payout for storage of data, because this is then predictable where-as egress is not.
Your suggestions to lower Egress pricing is not what I was making a statement on. As you didn’t suggest removing Egress payouts completely.
Consider, next time, that my response was not targeted at whatever you had posted (Had it been, I would have responded to you and not to everyone), nor was it disparaging to any comment anyone posted. It was simply a reminder/statement of fact.
5 Likes
And we are supposed to be decentralised?
The line that says “Repair” in the table should have said “Audit / Repair” It has been updated
4 Likes
Sure. But there is the effect of diminishing returns here. You don’t need millions or hundreds of thousands of hosts to reach the most important effects of decentralization (reliability and locality)—at some point actually becomes a hindrance for two reasons: the coördination efforts across so many people grow more than gains from decentralization, and at some point we will run out of the best hosts (datacenters, professionals and amateurswith good IT skills) and forcing further decentralization will additionally reduce the average reliability of nodes. I would not be surprised if it turned out a few thousands of good quality nodes turned out to be enough.