41K SC upload fee???



  • Hit with 41K SC upload fee? Why does this happen?

    https://explore.sia.tech/hash.html?hash=45218adbb00f284a47ba678ece8ed7d87215dcc8eb4c3be4711b4fb5b5be4292

    I had set an allowance of 7500 SC.

    I would have liked to support the project but frankly, I feel like I have been robbed. Out of here I think.



  • OK, I am thinking most of it is unspent but why does so much get taken out when I specify a 7.5k allowance,? It is really really user unfriendly.


  • Global Moderator

    @desgrippes it is very unfriendly. Good luck.

    Make sure you tag me @bryan if you need to me respond.
    Forum Mod. I cannot fix transactions. I can't help with Mac or Linux.

    0


  • @bryan Yeah, I have 10 years software testing experience and feel like an idiot when using the Wallet, that is not a good sign.



  • I think the allowance is monthly, but the storage contracts may cover a longer period? Do you have the details of that contract, i.e. what was agreed between your renter and the hoster?



  • @desgrippes I tested this like 5 weeks ago and put my warnings out. Since then I have been banned in slack.. no biggie. I still educate- but Sia has never been a project that has been on the level. It borderlines SCAM (tough word), but when you lose 41k coins and only put up an allowance of 7500- what else can you label it? Maybe if there was some sort of disclaimer.. but its absolutely bad code and platform when pp lose MORE coins in it- than they agreed to put in it. I personally think having the wallet, hosting and renting all in 1 UI creates issues by default.

    Unofficial User / Tester / Analyst of Sia ( w/Renter and Host experience)

    1


  • @desgrippes , @moorsc0de
    We all hope for the upcoming version of UI. As I understand there should be some sort of "renters protection" (against malicious hosts) built in that is missing in in the 1.2.2 and older releases.



  • @reinisp "malicious host"??? in a decentralized market place?

    No the issue is renters cannot see the prices being agreed to in the implied contracts Sia pairs them with. Sia would be 100x better if it just allowed people to select the price they want and spend that.
    Could you imagine going to Amazon platform- automatically being paired to a product that costs 2 dollars and paying 10 times more for it without your control?

    Thats Sia right now. How this is blamed on hosts is beyond me... Just give the consumer controls and tools to see whats going on. This is basic stuff.

    Unofficial User / Tester / Analyst of Sia ( w/Renter and Host experience)

    0


  • @moorsc0de
    I don't know if the host scoring in the "current" (1.2.x) works as intended and looks for all possible fees at contract creation. I just know, it has been updated in the upcoming release.
    I completely agree that the renter should be able to put limits to possible contract conditions. Or, at least give the client software (contractor) some hints about planned use - small/big files, upload once/download many times, planned duration for storage, etc.



  • @desgrippes I am afraid it can be already spent. Unspent (open) file contact looks a little different in the blockchain - it have zero File Size and File Merkle Root. For example: https://explore.sia.tech/hash.html?hash=e5ce0a7a7177bcdac5b8ca6b27009b36360728b9053c912836381e677bed1070

    This one looks like finished one. I think you have been robbed by host with low storage price, but extremely high upload price.
    Although I have no idea why the client chose such a bad host - the price for traffic is also taken into account when choosing a host. It has several times less weight compared to storage price but we see situation where the price was set at least a million times higher than the average for the market. So host must be sent to the very end of host queue and never chosen while at least few dozen normal hosts exist in the network

    You can check contract status by
    renter contracts ==> list of contracts
    and
    renter contracts view [contract-id] ==> details of the specified contract
    We want to know our "hero"



  • @Mad_Max " Although I have no idea why the client chose such a bad host..."

    BAD CODE...and lack of fixing code.
    This was brought up almost a month ago on reddit and this forum... here:
    https://forum.sia.tech/topic/1418/bad-contracts-high-fees-major-renter-losses

    Where renters were seeing same exact behavior. Hosts with insane uploaded prices and this being a way to rob the renter.

    Unofficial User / Tester / Analyst of Sia ( w/Renter and Host experience)

    0


  • @moorsc0de
    Exactly this issue I meant by "renters protection against malicious hosts"

    In the 1.3 version the "low price, high fees" hosts are at least not anymore in the top100 in the ranking score.

    And that's why I suggest not to use any "current" (<1.3) version for renting.



  • @reinisp
    I'm confused because it sounds like your drawing connections between siapulse pricing and the Sia UI and that is not 100% true. The Sia Code is what determines the contracts- not any pricing figs in SiaPulse or SiaHub.
    So how are you able to say a specific version of Sia UI is recommended.. when a host can change his or her price at any time??

    The UI code ultimately has to stop the issue- not any website reporting pricing that have been known to be laggy and not real time.
    Sia UI does not show host rankings with price. Just shows you rankings-but prices are not concrete. A host can easily bag in a renter for low price and high fees.. also your leaving out the fact a host can also charge MORE per contract than 1 SC. Seen it done.. Some set their contract fee to 3- 5 SC.
    The platform is scammy man...

    Unofficial User / Tester / Analyst of Sia ( w/Renter and Host experience)

    0


  • @moorsc0de
    There is connection between SiaHub where I watch the pricing trends and a UI (the underlying wallet or siad).
    Siahub shows the data (pricing and scoring) it gets from a "Siahub wallet". You can get the same information from your wallet. The host score differs slightly between any 2 wallets but the price offerings are correct. The "laggy" comes from the fact the wallet does not update all the hostdb every second.
    And I saw hosts with nearly zero "price" but insane fees in the top30 before the 1.3.0 wallet was available. I saw these hosts pushed out of top 300 after the 1.3 version was in the GitHub. So I assume the wallet version lower than 1.3 still does not penalize them.

    Regarding contract fees- 3-5 SC are normal one time fees in my opinion.
    Of course, 250SC just for initial renter setup (50 hosts) looks a lot , but that is the price you pay the hoster for being ready to accept your files (locking part of the hosts collateral). Upload and download fees are infrastructure related- someone has to pay for the used bandwidth. Why should the hoster alone bear all the responsibility and costs for the renters wishes by sacrificing his available coins, storage space and network bandwidth?



  • @reinisp I am not disputing there is a transfer of data from UI to Sia Hub and Sia Pulse. What I am saying is the UI does not (should not) be using these sites for the host/ rentering pairing.
    Sia Pulse and Sia Hub are independently managed using open source data from Sia. So there is no way for the UI to just take info from random sites and pair that up to the renter/host matching process.

    I have voiced questions in the past regarding the scoring and also uptime of each site... In testing, I have had Sia UI completely uninstalled from my computer and yet my IP still shows on the SiaPUlse site as active and days continue to count as if I am still active.
    Sia Hub is managed by another guy and he does a relatively good job of displaying data.. but thats all it is - a display. The code renter and these sites have nothing in common when an allowance is set. There is a behind the scene's engine to determine renter/host matchups.. and so
    using these sites does not provide a 1 to 1 relationship between whats going on in the UI and what is going on in "reality" for the renter.

    Sure 3-5 SC is normal.. but paying a 10,000 SC upload fee is not and renters have been linked to this.. and simply using SiaHub and SiaPulse displayed scoring does not eliminate the possibility these hosts being selected or paying these high fees with one.There are many stories ofthis going around. Perhaps new version addressed- this but using Sia Hub and Sia Pulse does not prove that...and if the U is using those pages- Sia has bigger issues than I thought.

    Your last question is off topic so I am not going to get into that. This post is about a renter who lost mass amount of coins and doesnt know why. But more than likely a masked host and upload price is why...

    Unofficial User / Tester / Analyst of Sia ( w/Renter and Host experience)

    1


  • @moorsc0de
    SiaPulse and SiaHub is taking information from their UI (not the ui but the siad from their UI), not the other way. That is the problem. SiaHub shows scoring from 1.3, but the UI users still download the 1.2.2 as the current and get the scores from the outdated scoring routines.



  • @reinisp said in 41K SC upload fee???:

    Regarding contract fees- 3-5 SC are normal one time fees in my opinion.
    Of course, 250SC just for initial renter setup (50 hosts) looks a lot , but that is the price you pay the hoster for being ready to accept your files (locking part of the hosts collateral). Upload and download fees are infrastructure related- someone has to pay for the used bandwidth. Why should the hoster alone bear all the responsibility and costs for the renters wishes by sacrificing his available coins, storage space and network bandwidth?

    up to 50-250 SC for initial renter setup (50 hosts, each charging 1-5 SC for contract creation) is nothing compared to other fees charged from current renters. Looks for example there (example of first 10 contacts for new renter setup): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KD1tdxc78okXeu4c2z4vWnVr1p9aaaqCXlwfaMmNZ9M/

    Currently renters charged for contract creation (this fee goes to hosts) AND seafund fees in advance on full allowance and full collateral. Even if three is no actual use(upload,storage, etc) yet. Is more like 20-30 SC fees per 1 contact and 1000-1500 SC fees for initial renter setup.



  • @reinisp Therein lies a problem... eh?

    I'm not quite sure how long Sia expects to stay afloat like this. Are they still afloat? hmmm

    Unofficial User / Tester / Analyst of Sia ( w/Renter and Host experience)

    0


  • @moorsc0de
    This is the reason why I'm telling to not use the "current" release (1.2.2) for renting.

    @Mad_Max
    I would say simply the coin price is/was to high.

    As I understand Siafund fee is a bit less than 4% from the locked collateral That should not be the issue.
    Locking the allowance in advance (the same way as collateral) is acceptable, but it should be the expected, documented and explained behaviour, not unexpected.
    For instance, my host tells me:

         Locked Collateral: 18.99 KS
         Risked Collateral: 329 SC
         Lost Collateral:   0 H 
    

    It means my balance has nearly 20KS less, but only 329 are "used" (risked).



  • @reinisp You telling me this is a mute point.

    Sia Ui has been distributed to anyone with an internet connection and capable of installing and actually spending coins in it. That's the over arching problem (not me). I already know about this.. but how many other people do not?
    How many other people still using the old version? Why was the old version even deployed in this type of way?

    Im thinking about other people besides myself. I sacrificed my SC to warn people when I saw it was not on the level- not to warn myself.
    So lets say Sia never saw this basic oversight.. what else was overlooked? This is the reality I have mentioned.. its ridiculous how people keep getting drug along in this Sia affair.

    Create something that works (as designed)- then release it... its that simple. Releasing things ... pumping the platform on internet and in the slack is damn near selling snake oil.. without the SNAKE OIL label.

    The image you just posted is what I just explained. But you have no idea if that collateral will come back until the final day of the minimum 13 week contract.. and on top you dont even know how many contracts came in each day because the v1.2.2 was incrementally increasing contract count every time the UI was rebooted. So the actual ledger of collateral is a figure derived from what? There is no file to actually go back to and make a coin by coin or contract by contract audit to know if this is working properly. Your just looking at numbers on a screen.

    Unofficial User / Tester / Analyst of Sia ( w/Renter and Host experience)

    0


  • OK, despite my fears is does seem like it is locked and not spent, if I am reading the 'renters contract' data returned correctly?

    marfeusftp.myftp.org:9982 39.65 KS 0 H 1.618 KS 281.02 MB 126775 8f767e913845e531ebe8ba063614b46b27740119d0bdcdbb1c0cc18df67594f7

    That would appear to be the offended contract. Am I right in thinking 39.65K gets sent back on block 126775?

    Still, I fail to see why this much SC left my wallet at the outset. It has resulted in me deleting my data from the hosts and xferring my remaining SC back onto the exchange which I would of course prefer not to do.

    The UI is frankly dire, completely unintuitive, I have no idea if that is a bug or just badly implemented correct behavior. I do know I should not have my allowance exceeded whether by poor code design or otherwise. I am semi-computer literate, I can only imagine the effect that would have on someone less able to analyse what happened and get help.


Log in to reply