Contract Fees Paid to Hosts with incorrect ports?
Based on formed contracts command 'renter -v'
I see- active hosts that are on the network that are ported incorrectly and charging for storage space.
Granted they are ported wrong there will be a sacrifice of collateral on their part, but seems there should be a way to prevent contracts from being formed with hosts that have incorrect porting.
Ex. is on SiaHub- and in my renter file.
IP: 126.96.36.199:9000 Has 1.9TB drive space on SiaHub, contract paid 49 SC to this entity, but data offered is 0 MB (likely due to the porting?) Ideas?
every host could change the port if they want. So you could run multiple hosts behind one IP address. You have a contract with the example host about 49SC but you currently have no data stored to this host. After the contract period is over you will get the money (- fee, ..) back.
@lasat Understood but the question is moreless regarding logic of the renters contract spend- not will the return of spent money after 13 weeks.
I have also noticed some ACTIVE IP hosts have 0 data space and contract spend is going to them. Yes this will return, but this is not efficient use of a renters SC. Its locking up renter SC to invalid IP ports or an IP with no data sharing on it.
Then that renter has to wait before getting SC back when they could have used it with a true IP with data and valid port to store data.
I hope this gets looked into..as demand for data space goes up- this will be a problem for serious users looking for data storage.
Contract Fees are not returned- only the unused portion of the contract spend is returned. Once contract formed- a certain spend is gone and if the Active Host figures out they can do thi- its a loss of SC for renters. Bad contract business.
Perhaps Every Active host with contracts shouldnt be allowed to change ports if this means they cannot communicate in P2P fashion with available data space. Ideas?
@moorsc0de: Contracts with hosts offer zero space should be avoided by the renter I hope, but this could be answered by a developer. Invalid port: AFAIK a host is identified by pubkey and not primary by port, so switching the port after a contract is build should only result in a short unavailabilty of the storage space. After the host has reannounced his availability the renter can/should be able to use the contract. If the host doesn't reannounce he risk the collateral and the renter is payed.
I'm not sure if this is implemented, but this is what I understand after reading and playing around with sia.
We can only speak of the things we know about. My point is- there is NO WAY (currently) for a renter to avoid a host offering 0 space. The contracts are auto formed with no visuals by the buyer (at moment). I noticed this issue when I went to look at the contracts the system had bought for me. Now, if there is a way for me to select what I buy- fill me in. But there is not.
No offense... Reading on Sia is one thing- actually doing it is another. Most documentation is dated.. so I am speaking as of 6-16-2017. When a person buys contracts there are hosts with 0 space being offered..yet SC is being spent. This is despite them showing available space on SiaHub. Yes, funds should come back, but efficiency of logic states those hosts shouldnt be able to even be in the buying process if there are not available to share the space that they have advertised. The only common denominator I have seen in the renter file is these type of hosts have different ports listed- which is odd. MMaybe this isnt the case 1 of the 2 have a different port.. the other has 9982. So the proper question is.. why is the code allowing contracts to be bought from hosts that are not listing available space?
I have given IP's and have the actual file to prove this is being done. I am not sure what is driving it though (porting or code)...