ii. Operate more than one Storage Node with different Payment Addresses on different Storage Nodes
PS: The page will be updated 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.
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!
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.
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?
@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.