Why node age MUST be same on ALL (new) Satellites

Ideas & Suggestions Storage Node feature requests - voting
1

As we know

Each Satellite individually vets all of the Storage Nodes with which it works. This function is an artifact of the decentralized nature of the network. Tardigrade Satellites operated by Storj Labs behave the same as community-run Satellites.

But there are reasons why this is not good:

  1. ALL satellites created by ONE OPERATOR.
  2. Old nodes have shown their reliability on other satellites.
  3. Launching new satellites is starting an unfair game with SNO (payouts drop to 25%). The most recent example: as soon as saltlake should to pay 50% a new satellite was launched and again the payments returned to 25%.

If the age is calculated from zero on new satellites SNO MUST be able to set quota per satellite.
Why do I think so? Tardigrade is used for storing backups. Backups = low paid trash with 1-2% egress. This reduces the revenue to almost zero and simple mining (BHD) more profitable.

2

I agree. If my node was almost full, I’d rather accept more data from older satellites than newer ones, leaving 10GB or so for the newer satellites just enough to get vetted.

4 Likes
3

You do realise satellites are independent of each other. Just because europe-north was launched it doesn’t mean other satellites would revert back to paying 25%. If your node is supposed to get 50% from saltlake then it will get 50% irrespective of launch of new satellites.

I would suggest you rephrase that sentence.

3 Likes
4

Please ask yourself, who is a satellite owner? :wink:

5

That doesn’t change what I said but since you voted, you agree with OP that Storj is cheating.

6

Justement a qui appartiens les satellites ?
moi j’aimerai bien en lancer un :smile:

7

Please do not manipulate and not translate my decision.

I voted this topic because I do not like an unfair game with SNO. A lot of storage nodes were on the network for more than 12 months, and when a new satellite is up from Storage Labs side it completely drop any motivation on good and resilient storage node operators. They fight and survive at least a year to rise good storage nodes and reputation, but evrything is drop to zero when the new “independent” satellite from Storj Labs. This is the main reason why I voted on this topic.

4 Likes
8

What is this everything that is dropped to zero ?

1 Like
9
  1. Payouts (starting from scratch: 25% )
  2. Reputation
  3. Vetting on “new” satellite
10

Would you rather your node doesn’t do business with this additional satellite? Especially in the case of Europe north which was created for a different purpose and is to be run in addition to other satellites, not instead of.

There may be more of an argument for saltlake replacing stefan-benten. If it wasn’t for the fact that stefan-benten is still generating much more income and saltlake seems to function in addition to that one as well for now. Additionally it was already communicated that if and when stefan-benten is shut down, the held amount will be paid out. So any new held amount on saltlake would just replace what stefan-benten has paid out.

There is no cheating. The new satellites were launched for legitimate reasons, not to mess with SNOs. If you don’t like starting over with held amounts you can remove the new sats from the whitelist and miss out on the additional business altogether.

5 Likes
11

…and make more than 90% activity!

12

Or, new vetted Storj Sat’s could share reputation history with the average of the other existing sats, resulting in a ‘shared’ reputation experience.

13

Say what now?

image
Other way around friend!

And no longer be decentralized… Kind of goes against what this whole thing stands for.

14

My position:

  1. Storage nodes should have the same age on all tardigrade satellites.
  2. Age should be calculated on the first contact with any tardigrade satellite that has the same owner.
  3. Replacement satellite shouldn’t mean starting from scratch on a new satellite.

Are you understood my concern and my position?

2 Likes
15

I understand your position. I simply disagree.
Storj labs has shown to act responsibly around these issues and since held amount on decommissioned satellites would be paid back I don’t have any trouble with how they are dealing with satellites in order to maintain decentralization of all components of the network, even those they run themselves. Especially keeping in mind that other satellites will not necessarily share the same owner. I see the value of all satellites operating in the same decentralized way.

1 Like
16

I also understood your position and your oppition.
We just have different point of view, any way, evryone can share their oppition and position here, and anyone should respect opinion of eatchother.
Thanks for share your opinion, I appreciate it.

2 Likes
17

My argument would be for a one-time startup agreement, having concurrence with existing reputation of other vetted storj sats. I fail to see how this is any more centralized than the existing strategy of using ‘vetted’ sats.

18

Likewise, I appreciate debate where we can agree on the facts and then disagree on priorities. I wish the world were more like that. So thanks!

2 Likes
19

I feel like the forum has gotten a lot more hostile recently and for that I spend a lot less time on it.

20

Well, it’s a shared reputation across satellites vs individually vetted reputation on each satellite. That’s the definition of centralized vs decentralized.

I’m sorry to hear that. If my arguments have been part of that I apologize. I think @Odmin and I were engaging in reasonable debate here and in a friendly manner disagreed. But tone is unfortunately absent in text, so I’ll try to be more mindful of that.