Which wallet goes held and escrow from Stefan´s satellite?

Now that Stefan´s satellite will be shutdown I have 2 questions please:

  1. To which wallet will escrow and held amount be payed? The in-use one? Because I changed wallet meanwhile.

  2. When is the shutdown scheduled to happen? I have 2 nodes to move location to a better ISP.

All payments are done to the address in use in your node. Also remember as per Terms of Use you have to use same address across all nodes.

1 Like

Same address or same email? I have some nodes on family member’s house with my email but 3 different address to make payments segmented, because otherwise we can’t see how much each node generated!

Payments are made to ETH address that accepts ERC-20 token.

You cannot do that and it violates Terms of Service.

Excerpt:

ii. Operate more than one Storage Node with different Payment Addresses on different Storage Nodes

PS: The page will be updated :soon: to reflect running more than 1 node by SNOs and other amendments like minimum storage space required for running node. But using 1 payment address for all nodes is mandatory.

2 Likes

Damn it…
But it makes no sense at! What’s the purpose of it?
That way Storj is forcing people to just create one email per node to be able to use different eth addresses, no?

Minimizing transfer fees. If you want to know how much each node earned, use the earnings.py script.

They won’t. Because people just create different emails to add different eth addresses to make it segmented.
Wouldn’t it be more transparent to just assume that one person can manage several nodes with different eth addresses?

Earnings script is not accurate enough.
As long as there was somewhere we’d be able to see payments per node, that rule would make sense then.

I bet a lot of people is on this situation.
I consider myself very active in the community, and only now I was aware of this!

1 Like

Emails & payment addresses are not connected at all the way you think. You can use fakename@fakeemail.com as your email too but payment addresses MUST be same across all nodes.

1 Like

Meaning:
You use 5 different emails to request 5 authentication tokens, run 5 nodes with 5 differents eth addresses, but they belong to the same operator!
How’s this different then using 1 email and 5 eth addresses, 1 per node to segment payments?

If Storj had a “report” per node for payments, then yes of course, using the same payment address would make total sense, not the other way around.
Otherwise, I’m betting a lot of SNOs that see this post will have to start over and kill a few nodes.

What “won’t they”, minimizing fees? Of course, this is the point of this clause in the terms, which you agreed to. If you feel the need to breach this clause, just keep it to yourself and don’t open such threads. I’m aware that this clause is hard to enforce…

What is your use case here? Why is it so important that to you to know how much exactly each node has made and for which the earnings calculator is not accurate enough? At the end of the day the money ends up in your pocket.

1 Like

No you can use same email address to get new auth tokens but

  1. You need to first use your first auth token in order to get second auth token else you will get email with same auth token which was unused.

  2. You can get 1 auth token every 24 hours.

You can run any number of nodes but they must all have same ethereum payment address to get paid. You cannot use 5 different ETH addresses

Now that Stefan´s satellite will be shutdown I have 2 questions please.

Where you found this info? O.o

Here

Look, if you disagree on something it´s your problem, not mine. I´m just stating that it´s an noneffective clause to minimize transfer fees.
It would be a lot more productive if you actually contribute with constructive critics instead of just “keep it to myself”.
I´ve made a substancial investment in Storj and trully believe in the project (over 1200€ now)…don´t know about you:
I run 2 Synology´s 412+, 2 RPI´s and 2 Microserver N54L on 6 different locations in 2 countries with over 20TB shared!!!
Not even to mention 7 new SNO´s onboarded by me!
This is a real concern that I want to be compliant with ToS!
So, I suggest either you contribute positively or please abstain!
PS: Money doesn´t END in my pocket. The purpose of having family members involved in this is to break costs in half: electricity and investment. They provide the location and Internet, I provide the equipment and manage it and we share 50/50.
How can I share it if I don´t know how much each node earn?

If the nodes are managed by different people then having different ETH address is the way to go but if you claim them to be your nodes then they need to have same ETH address.

I would recommend using your family member’s email and ETH address owned by that family member for their nodes.

1 Like

Ok @nerdatwork, thank you.
I think there must be some misunderstanding on my issue.
Nevermind, thank you for your help.
I´ll just kill 5 nodes and their data then, as I´m breaking ToS.
Thank you.

1 Like

That quotes a most obviously outdated ToS sheet, since the next paragraph there forbids doing the following:

iii. Operate more than one (1) Storage Nodes behind the same IP address

which is now totally fine to do.

There are also other outdated terms in there, like:

  • A minimum of 250 GB of available Space per Storage Node
  • 0.5 TB of Bandwidth available per month

So I wouldn’t rely on that “one payment adress for all nodes” rule to be in effect.

2 Likes

@jocelyn, @Alexey, can you step in please with an official statement from the team itself?
I´m 24h away from flying with an N54L Server and a Synology 412+ with total 14TB to add to Storj and I need to know if it´s even worth the trouble.
Thank you in advance.

It’s not different for the purpose of the ToS. Both would be against ToS independent of what email addresses are used. All nodes managed by the same operator should use the same payout address.

While I think transaction costs are one argument, another would be that it hides when a single operator spins up many nodes for some reason. This may be partially a leftover concern from the V2 days. And since we know the ToS are being rewritten, I think it’s a good idea to wait and see what they will say.

So yeah, I’d hold off on this move until the new ToS has been published. And even if this clause remains, you might as well change them to use the same address instead of killing the nodes.

1 Like