Storj DCS

We’re thrilled to launch Storj DCS (Decentralized Cloud Storage)

Big news at Storj today! We’ve officially launched our new and improved decentralized cloud object storage service, Storj DCS. We’ve been listening to our community and users and understand everyone wants a decentralized cloud storage experience that is unified and easy to understand.

Because of your feedback, we’re now rolling our Tardigrade product back under the Storj brand, and it will now be called Storj DCS (Decentralized Cloud Storage). It’s still the same great service, with a new, easier-to-understand name, and a rollout of features to improve the user experience overall.

We’re also updating our brand mark (logo) slightly, to fit the new look and feel of Storj. We’ve updated our website, and now people who visit will be redirected to corresponding pages on

Our S3-compatible gateway is now live.

Still with us? We’ve been busy, and we’ve got one more thing to share. Our S3-compatible gateway is now live, as are several new architectural improvements. These updates represent a huge leap forward in privacy, security, resiliency, S3 compatibility, usability, performance, economics, and supported use cases.

With the new multi-tenant gateway, developers can simply change a few lines of code in their existing Amazon S3-backed applications to start storing data on Storj DCS immediately. The update also includes new features like multi-part upload to improve overall performance when storing large objects on Storj DCS.

Privacy. Security. Freedom

32 posts were merged into an existing topic: What’s up today?

Privacy. Security. Freedom

From above:

“Along with the launch of Storj DCS, the company has also lowered its pricing by more than half for storage and more than 80 percent for bandwidth. Storage costs on Storj DCS will now be charged at $4 per terabyte per month (previously $10) and bandwidth costs will now be lowered to $7 per terabyte per month (previously $45). These low costs, combined with superior privacy, security, and redundancy that goes beyond multi-region—plus enterprise service level agreements—make switching to Storj DCS an obvious choice for developers around the world. Storj”

1 Like

I will share if the traffic will go up to my nodes in the coming months…

Privacy. Security. Freedom

I recently priced some high performance 20TB NAS hard drives. They were around 800$ AUD giving 40 AUD per TB.

At that $4 USD (5.40 AUD) it is only 7.5 months of storage. Yes I realise that the 4$ is for online storage, but it is still a comparison that shows that Safe should provide much better value considering it is using spare resources

1 Like

I will only note that Storj also recommends only the use of spare resources, and I use it that way.

So they are our direct competitor for farmers. If Safe does not offer a higher profit, it will be better to farm Storj and buy Safe tokens.

Privacy. Security. Freedom

There’s 2 covid jags,
one fixes covid and costs $5
one might, but costs $2

It’s more profit to you to get the second one if profit is money and spending less is akin to earning more.

There’s 2 cars
one costs $400 and will get you there
one costs $1000 and will get you there in comfort

Here first one is more profit, but we know folk buy the 2nd one.

In terms of earning then I think it’s unclear. It may be price focussed and for a % of earners that may be the only issue (we see that in blockchain mining) and the “best” price wins.

So I would say I cannot see anything cheaper than Safe, but lets see how it pans out, but I am not certain farmers will be so keen to switcharoo here. Moving all that data is not like switching a miner off and on, Chia for instance has all that data (not readable useful data mind you) and I am sure it’s looking to compete by using proof of having a load of data (cost) instead of POW. It may be good to see how many jump chia<-> BTC or whatever the flavour of the day is for profiteers?

We will know soon :smiley: :smiley:


My view is that we need to have a resource to subsidize farmers. Whether we use it or not, it is good to have it, because there is competition. Storj subsidizes farmers - there are months when they pay x2-4 more:

And I’m interested in how you can assume without data that farmers are replaceable and expendable:

Our competitors don’t think the same unless we think these businesses are stupid even though they’ve managed to deliver working products to the market valued at millions of dollars and we shouldn’t think so because we will end up like Sia - a 4 years working product with the incredible 500 farmers:

Privacy. Security. Freedom

There is - 85% of tokens isn’t it?

1 Like

Depends on how they will be used and set for use in the algorithm. I have seen all kinds of proposals - including for full spending within 1-2 years.

Privacy. Security. Freedom

1 Like

Yes, we will have to see. I’m hoping for a long draw-out much in the manner of BTC’s rewards. As we know such a system works.

1 Like

This should not be a problem in stable environment. Simply if miners will be able to earn more somewhere else, some of them will leave and the lack of free space will increase rewards for the remaining.

Other storage networks are not a competition. It does not matter that people can earn more somewhere else if that somewhere else is finite.

If people can make profit by buying a new computer and joining our network than there should be always enough farmers. What we need is a big pool of coins owned by the network to be able to use them in case there is a sudden problem with farmers. In such scenario network needs to reward much more coins to attract farmers. Those coins need to be destroyed when everything goes back to normal. So if we have a mining algorithm, where there is some prefered amount of coins in existance, let say 2 billinos, than network has 2 more billions reserve for bad times. If there is lack of farmers, it rewards more and amoint of coins increases. If there is too many farmers, it rewards less,and amount of coins decreses. If there is optimum number of farmers, and coins number is higher than 2 billion those excess coins can be slowly desteoyed over time. If there is less than 2 billions, those missing coins can be printed over time. Destroying coins is very important for maintaining enough big pool of free coins for bad times.

Good :wink:

Nope, but they are different with a different vision.

Exactly these will help with initial growth and for many years I hope.

Business is hard as hell. The number of variables is vast, any singular isolated view is dangerous I feel @Dimitar It’s not invalid and I hope you take this as discussion, not an unreasonable argument. It’s like saying it’s all about engineering, it’s all about marketing, it’s all about profits for a certain part of the eco system and more. It’s actually about them all. Then the product or service on offer, is Sia or Storj really offering the same product as us? (I feel you need to be very loose with categorisation there if you think so).

1 Like

I am for a hybrid system - the autonomous network algorithm + amount available to the Foundation to be used if needed.

Privacy. Security. Freedom

1 Like

Why though, as we have it farmers leave, the network automatically pays more to get them back? Surely that works.


Personally, I rather the foundation just ask for funds if it needs them as that gives more accountability. Doesn’t the foundation already have an endowment of some %? I thought it did.

The network itself has a built in mechanism to pay what it needs to pay too get enough farmers.

If there aren’t enough, it pays more. To many, it pays less. I don’t understand why there’s any need for external subsidy.

Edit: David beat me to it!


Storj announces in advance when there will be increased payments. Sometimes knowing the future increases stability.

Privacy. Security. Freedom

Right, I am emailing them for the lotto numbers. They really do have something special :smiley: :smiley: