Topic: [ANN][BURST] Burst | Efficient HDD Mining | New 1.2.3 Fork block 92000 - page 179. (Read 2170648 times)

I recall that if you specify the drives as C:\+D:\+E:\ it will read the drives sequentially instead of simultaneously - but I don't recall if that was the native miner or one of the third parties - probably Blagos.

hiya folks, it's me again with another random technical question...

So, I've got myself 4T spread across 4 disks, and I've plotted and optimized and such (3.2T worth of nonces), and I'm mining away happily on cryptomining.farm using Uray's miner r4.  In the past, I had no problems getting dcct's plotter and optimizer to work, but with a few different pools, I was unable to get the dcct miner to work, thus why I found myself using Uray's miner.  Uray's miner is working ok, BUT, I've organized my disks into 50G plotfiles (16 files per disk), and when it gets a block, it seems to try to read all plot files across all disks at once, basically blowing up all disks at once, and making the machine put up massive load averages, while just basically waiting for IO.  (I was using an old thin client, turned low power "server" to mine, but to try to help this, I'm now mining on 8 threads/4G RAM dedicated to the miner, and it's still melting whatever box I mine on)

So, I guess my question is there any way to configure Uray's miner read the plots sequentially, or one disk at a time?  Or, do any of the other cpu miners out there do that?  It would seem I could get the same sort of speed per round, without beating the crap out of my machine that way...

I can't be the first to observe and/or request this, right?

Thanks.

If Elmit is in favor, then I withdraw all my previous proposals and will reconsider my position.

In the meantime, anyone who holds Income asset and has lost faith, please sell - I have a buywall up at the initial published price.

Thanks.

H.

More or less the coin is dead and we can change whatever is useful.
I agree with the changes!

The more I think about it, the more I like it, and I would very much enjoy setting up and running something like this. There would be need for initial investment for promotion and I could do as much twitter and forum promotion in various areas of this forum to promote it.

Do you think this would have to be another separate company completely? Or could I wrap it together as part of my existing company something like I did with ByteEnterprises?

The whole thing I keep thinking about though, is the idea that we'd still be in need of investors, however, it shouldn't be THAT hard to find people who'd be more willing to invest in a company than a particular coin, even if that company is working almost solely for that particular coin's technology. The company wouldn't necessarily be fully limited to that coin either. If there WERE a clone that came out, said company would be most likely interested in that as well, as the technology would be available there as well.

very interesting. I wonder if this could be something I could make happen.

One thing though, is that the stuff we're working with is open source, so what would keep others from just ripping off the ideas we paid to have developed and doing it themselves? Not quite the same as the company you formed for the idea you mentioned.

You need to convince investors that the company will make money down the line.
If the investors can buy BTC and not really have to fiddle with BURST, you have a somewhat larger audience, however their asset holdings should probably be registered in the BURST chain,so an investor would need help to have a wallet established with a secure password that has not been leaked. ( or a thief could move the assets off the account )

The great thing about the company is that the company is seperate from the core dev group. The core dev group can still make sure BURST is stable and true to whatever the larger group of users want. The company owners can speed up development of services and whatever BURST stuff is needed to establish such services, and make money off the products. Company could also run mining pools or websites related to burst, if the company thinks such websites could be profitable, or somehow raise the burst price enough to warrant development.

Suppose the company developed file storage in burstcoin.  The dev team would then still have the final say about if and when the file storage stuff is relased in burstcoin, but the feature is done, and the company will be first in line to profit off such a feature, as the company has the best tech insight, and have had time to develop ways to profit from the new infrastructure. The company might release a file storage mining pool close to day 1, and offer to lease the source for the pool to other people who want to own a file storage pool. revenues from FS pool and lease to others could then over time generate a nice ROI of the company money spent on software development.

Suppose the company developed coin anonymization support in BURST.  as soon as the new version was released, the company would have a website ready and be marketing it to users. Company would have a head start with the stuff it sponsors, as it has the knowledge and of course it might have had influence on the feature set so that the capabilities match well with company needs.

With a good story, and with marketing both inside and outside burst community, you might have an easy sell.

Basically, funding a company that will drive development of services and products that utilize BURST, a company dedicated to grow and make money by being first mover in new technologies. Opportunity for shareholders to get in at a low price, in a company that could be a major player in select areas like encrypted anonymouse file storage, areas like crypto finance, areas like automated transactions - bleeding edge stuff..

I like the company idea, but wouldn't we end up in pretty close to the same situation with the need for investors?

I am running my own version of the java wallet, but the original one works just fine too.

I am running my own version of the orignal java miner on windows 10 10240 and 10532 and it works fine with no problems whatsoever. The original one works fine too, my modifications are purely diagnostic and display.

As for plotting i use something called wplotgenerator.exe  it uses the CPU but with 8 cores at 4Ghz it is fairly fast anyways.

W7 had problems reading a lot of drives at the same time, and thrashed its memory, it seems like W10 is a lot better at managing things. I can work at this machine even though it is mining 24TB, i hardly ever notice a slowdown. This PC is quite powerful though, 8 cores, 4Ghz, 32GB memory, decent GPU etc. W7 would crash doing the same.

W10 still has a horribly unreliable time synchronization built in. i use the program NetTime on my pc's to keep them +/- 1 second from the correct time. Correct time is vital for burst mining, you loose out big if your pc is 30 seconds ahead or behind.

This is where we disagree. I don't think the reward decrease is happening too fast. Rather, the price is coming down too fast because we issue too many coins, so the decrease should perhaps have been even faster. But it is close to an insult against everyone who has worked with burst up till now, to change a vital part like that. Let the coins be distributed as was originally set up, or lets make a new coin with a better distribution, and let them compete.





if we reward more now, but less later ( get the rest of the coins out the door faster ) then the mine-and-sell miners might dump even more now, driving the price down further, but when we run out of coins later on, the price will go up a lot, as the selling pressure from mine-and-dump'ers  will go away.  This is not really a big advantage for anyone i think, and it still introduces risk with the coin investor wise, as the inflation rules change in midair and investors hate that.

if we add coins to the reward on an ongoing basis, the current BURST holdings are worth a lot less than they used to be, and BURST will not be a store of value.  mine-and-dump miners will have more BURST to dump, and investors will not want to buy BURST that go down in price all the time, even more than it has done up till now, so this solution is really bad. The only one making money here is the mine-and-dump miner - he gets to sell his BURST before the inflation of the newly issued coin is spread through the economy. Very bad.




But the tax is taken involuntarily from users, i would prefer a company approach where the ones who pay in, will get money back when the company makes money. Again, you are changing the rules on what should be a fixed setup, so people will shy away from holding BURST as a store of value, making BURST price go down significantly.



Is it only burstcoin that have write access to the burstcoin git.  I think it is more than him. If that is correct then we already have our core team, burstcoin and whoever else have write control. We just have to write up a guide for development, and make the current core dev team agree on the guidelines.  Guidelines should also mention how a developer might become member of the core team if he/she so wishes.

if it is only burstcoin that have write access, then we would probably need to make a fork/clone of the burstcoin repo and declare that the new main repo. I would very much prefer to wait until we hear from burstcoin instead of doing that, it would be so much nicer to have burstcoin in the core team, and have several people having write access to the main repository. A fork  / clone looks like a hostile takeover, and nobody is hostile, everyone loves burstcoin and the work done, it's just that we miss burstcoin so much right now, and would love to help out getting stuff done.

Noo, this is unfair to initial investors and miners. The only fair way to do it is to leave it at current reward or change the decrease to 1% or whatever, or leave it as it is. It's not fair to raise the reward from where it is now, as then the miners mining for the past few months have got a raw deal. Total cap can be increased i suppose. Just hard with how price has moved downwards....I really think we should focus not on burst's poc core, but rather on file sharing and an awesome wallet.

The java wallet works fine, so does the Windows Wallet. For miners I've used both Blagos and Luxe's GPU Miner.

H.

Windows 10?

What wallets and miners works on windows 10?

What he said, except i only started developing software in the 80s

I also think we have an opportunity window to make a file system on top of or driven by burst. I think such a thing would be outright revolutionary and could drive up the price of burst 10 or 20 fold over a few months. If we can get an anonymous decentralized encrypted file storage service online, it would be even more valuable than e.g. dropbox. Not easy to create, but we have the advantage of having payment system, decentralized network, and several terabytes of storage already. Not a bad start.

Sure, but I think you have to consider how a "devfund" will be perceived both by the community at large, the BURST community and newcomers. Words like "tax" and "premine" have already been used... and in my world, words like that do not have positive connotation. Consider comments on a premine of 8 percent...

No matter which percentage is implemented at first, it needs to be extremely well-explained and argumented.

From my point of view, a p2p voting system is great if it can be implemented, but it still is the chosen number that will be highlighted in discussions. One counter-argument here to a high percentage like one 8th of each block, is that it doesn't properly consider the expected value-increase of BURST. 8 percent can be quite a lot of money in two years, and quite ridiculous in double that time.

If PoC catches on as we hope and we'll see an opposite trend to what we seen this year in popularity the coming years, the accumulated amount could simply become more than you can spend, more or less, without being "careless", paying too much, hiring too many, promote too often to be reasonable. If the fund would become that big, it could also become sort of a target where big holders get together to get their "investments ideas" through, like giving money to the most biggest holders...

I'd suggest to lower the percentage more than to 8, but also in the argumentation for the system add that money from the devfund - if it becomes too big due to value-increase - funding also will go back to the community, miners and holders in certain ways.

Such ways could be that the fund can be used to have a "sale" in the market-place, make payments to crowdfunding projects, add money to lotteries or even charity, etc.

If doing so, I think it's appropriate to change the name of the "devfund" to the "BURST foundation" to highlight a possible wider-usage of the funds.

I'm sure i'm not the only one running a modified version of burstcoin - my own release if you may call it that. If there was a problem with the coin, i could quite easily make a new release with a fix in it, it's a fairly simple java project to compile.

I am sure we are probably 5 to 10 at least of not more relatively active users, that could, if need be, make a new release within hours, but of course if there is a nasty bug somewhere, it might take us somewhat longer to hunt it down and fix it, as we ( or at least i ) haven't spent a lot of time working with the code in detail.

I would also be able to fix bugs and build a release of the windows wallet if i really, really had to - i haven't even downloaded it, but it seems to be written in delphi or some deriative of that, and i spent many years coding using that language professionally back in the 90s


I understand some of you who are both entrepeneurial and have the time are very impatient and want something to happen..  i would propose something similar to what we did with liberland, where we had a bunch of volunteers not really doing much about things, esp. if it was costly, and some rich guys that had money, not time, and some people good at getting things done, who had time and knowledge, but not really wanted to work for free and have all the "volunteers" totally freeride their efforts..

we created liberland settlement corporation, and sold shares in that company.  its goal was to homestead and keep a settlement on liberland island and try to make a claim on that area, and also develop all sorts of businesses related to liberalnd, like a place where settlers can buy supplies, etc. The shareholders would own part of a company that would be the first company trying to make money in this new country, and if liberland would become a success, all early shareholders would get a very good profit, if we managed to homestead liberland iceland, they would even own quite a lot of pristine land, with water access etc.

investors loved it and shares were sold out in days, we could establish liberland settlement association, and now we more or less run the place, as we have money, and the volunteers have not.


You could do the same with BURST.   Use assets to determine ownership. Sell the assets at a somewhat low price, so that investors can see profits ahead. Make the company charter about developing commercial services that utilize BURST and about developing enhancements to BURST that is needed by these services. This is a company that intends to make a profit for its shareholders, by being the first serious commercial entity determined to make money off services using BURST.  You put a businessman in charge ( could be you ) and you sit tight on the money, but still spend money to get things done when neccessary. People who work for the company preferrably get paid in company shares, but stuff you need is paid by the company funds.

I would start the company with a market cap at 1000 BTC, and promise to use at most 1% of company funds each month, so investors in the beginning wil know that there is lots of capital backing, so they can get out when they want. for instance, 100000 assets priced at the BURST equivalent of 1000/100000 BTC.

so what do you get as an investor :

You own part of a well funded company that will soon own a lot of BURST related services and products and will soon earn good money by selling these services to end customers. You own part of a well funded company that have both the means and the muscle to make things happen with BURST, The company can build commercial usages of BURST services to be launched soon after the BURST service is launched. You own part of a company that will be the only obvious way to invest in BURST, driven by insiders who know the BURST inside out.

You could sell some of your revenue generating assets to the company for shares, and you could be CEO and get paid sweat equity, basically, each hour someone works for the company, they get paid some company shares for their time.

The company should never aleniate the volunteers by dictating BURST direction and changing how BURST work without having almost everyone agreeing, people should always feel they have a choice, but suppose someone has a good idea, but lack funding and infrastructure - they will perhaps go to the company to get all those things, in exchange they can get paid sweat equity for their hard work, if the company finds that their hard work will go towards making the company more money.

If you do it this way, you won't have to directly tap into burst users and burst holders using taxes or coersion, but simply use company funds to develop stuff ( like for instance a wallet, company forming consultancy, asset management services, whatnot ).  As a company you can develop whatever feature you find is needed with BURST, and hand the new feature over to the community as a pull request - the company will then launch its services and products almost immediatly after BURST supports what they need, and you have a nice time advantage there.  After a few successful launches, people will also know that services and products from the company is in fact backed both financially and people wise, and meet a high standard.

The company funds should probably be held as BTC. I am not sure if you can transfer assets without paying for them in BURST, i think you can. So to buy company shares, you either pay for them with BURST inside the BURST system, or directly with BTC and then get them transferred to your burst account. With funds held as BTC investors do not have the risk that BURST price collapses or the BURST network goes bonkers temporarily. On the contrary, the company will be able to buy lots of BURST at a good price, should the BURST price collapse for some reason.

Instead of distributing income, you could accumulate it, and for instance, monthly reports of company holdings and NAV could be published, this could help set the price fairly.

We sold liberland shares at 100 CHF each, which was about one third of what we thought would be fair price, we also preannounced that we would only sell them at that price for one month, then the price would be 200 CHF, and the month after that 300 CHF.  We wanted to give the early birds and thus biiig risk takers a very good deal, and it worked quite well, we sold out pretty fast at the lowest price, we even had to turn many really rich people down, as they would otherwise practically own everything bc they had so much money to spend.

If you pull off something like this, make sure the company doesn't live in one of those police states where the taxman and the government closes you down bc they don't like not to control company formation. Make sure no hostile nation state thinks it has the right to tax and control the company's assets.

Burst remains steady, I do not hesitate to always here.

1. Can agree to.

2. No, not 15K. Raise it to where it would be if it had declined at 1% per month - around 8,500. At 1% per month we get annual deflation of 11.4% and require the price to raise 12% to maintain value. At the 5% per month we were getting 46% deflation, and needed 85% annual price increase to maintain value.

3) No need to change transaction fees.

H.

Indeed, those who sell BURST now might regret it later. Current price is 27 satoshi, and in the future it can be 27000 satoshi. They will be probably angry at themselves, but it is just what happens if people are impatient.

I think those who buy & hold will be rewarded the most. While those who panic-sell will lose the most.

People forget... even two years after the launch of Bitcoin the value was under $3 a piece.
A few years after Litecoin was launched -- it was considered garbage and was valued way under $0.01/piece.

As mentioned, Burst is only one year old.
It's popularity is incredible for a coin only one year old.

Imagine where it could be two or three years from now.

I remember when there were four or five coins to choose from.  BTC, LTC, IXC, I0X and Solid Coin were the only real choices.
Now there are literally hundreds and hundreds, well into the thousands of clones.

Burst remains the only POC coin in it's class.
Think about that... and you'll realize how amazing this coin really is!

 

Thanks bro, I appreciate that. I can only promise I won't make rash decisions and that I'll do whatever I can for the betterment of the coin, including promotion and writing, and communication with any person that we feel could assist in one way or another. Eventually I'll learn to code and I can assist in that aspect as well.

I've given a lot of time to this coin, and I will continue to do so.

Thanks again, with all the stuff going on lately, that was certainly nice to hear. xD