So did I, ‘don’t tell, don’t ask’-policy.
Because the ‘spirit of Storj’ is just too ambiguous if you have to resolve for example CG-NAT issues and a VPN provider delivering you multiple IP-adresses. Too often just seen “it’s against the ToS”-answers, when it wasn’t backed up by any reasonable explanation of the ToS. For example:
- Explaining VPN as changing the node software or functioning of the Storj network in one situation, but condoning it in case of CG-NAT.
- The issue of this topic of multiple IPs for one physical location, but in case of the already mentioned data centers or CG-NAT evading is all of a sudden no problem.
- Running multiple nodes behind one IP, which was forbidden by the ToS, but explicitly condoned by the forum including FAQs how to do so.
- Stating one disk and at least one CPU core should be assigned for any node, but accepting RAIDs with multiple nodes.
- 99.3+% uptime requirement, but the node software is showing you to be in safe conditions in case of 98+% uptime (green) and the satellite doesn’t turn you down unless you are 60-% online.
- Telling each time that everything should be managed as much software-wise as possible, in the meantime demanding you to use graceful exit in case of cessation
- …
I remark myself to get yawning when talking about the ToS, since it’s actually not relevant anymore because of the many discrepancies which often is also being agreed not to be enforceable in any way.
Indeed, I see now while reading it. Let’s not talk about changes of terms and the necessity of an update notice, especially in case you’re holding the other party to follow it (Update Notice for Changes in Legal Agreements - TermsFeed just a shirt explanation about the ESIGN act).