Topic: [ANN][BURST] Burst | Efficient HDD Mining | New 1.2.3 Fork block 92000 - page 191. (Read 2170648 times)

1. No mining account was ever about 28% ... thats quite far away from 51% ...
2. BurstDev, never said that he quit! True, he did not respond for a few weeks.
3. NO PREMINE, 5% reward reduce, thats the contract i signed :-)
(Sending a % from every block to a whatever account is a 'premine')

better yet, don't accept me and be destroyed. even if I don't attack, you're doing a great job destroying yourselves.

You might be a botnet master, but you surely do not have a master in communication. Learn the basics. This is purely embarrassing for you.

Quoting myself: "Contribute and you shall be accepted".

He did, ... just read!!!

Yea, paying for servers isn't a problem for you, for now. It wasn't a problem for me for most of the time either. However, regardless, does it make sense to keep paying for servers for something that isn't being developed, and doesn't even have people willing to come up with a plan to counter bitladen's/mine?

Okay, I do know your thoughts on block reward, and it isn't a bad plan, and could possibly help the situation, but who is going to do this? How will it take place? What are the plans after? These are the things that must be discussed.

Threatening in public as a way to broaden people's thoughts on what is possible, and point out that there ARE some security issues that could be fixed fairly easily by getting a larger network, and simply being the frontman badguy, I still don't see this as a problem. If he is pointing out something that could legitimately happen, and saying he will only do it if it gets to the point that it is possible... but yet also saying... I'm willing to help, I'm willing to give use for the coin, I'm willing to provide core development for FREE, this doesn't sound like a person who is hostile to me. It sounds like someone who has a very direct way of pointing certain things out, yes. But it doesn't sound like someone who is out to destroy the coin. It sounds like someone who knows that there are possibly other people in positions near his own, and maybe these people aren't as up front about the possibilities of the said attack.

let us pretend for a moment, that bitladen isn't the only one with the possibility to do this. Let us also pretend that this person has already plotted multiple accounts. Let us also pretend that this person is totally hostile, and does this kind of stuff simply because they think it is fun, and has no reason behind it other than that. Will this person not attack the network if it is possible for them?

Allowing the network to continue to decrease in size is BAD. The problem, is coming up with a way to reverse the process. You and I both agree that a change in the block reward could do this, we just have different ideas on how much, and how so, and WHO will do it.

I don't immediately say that I'll never support someone who has pointed out an issue with a network, in public, and at the same time suggests a way to fix it, that makes sense.

I have yet to hear anyone say that the plan doesn't make sense. Only that they either think it would be a breach of contract, or that it would be bad (without any real reason.)


If you're totally wanting the coin to survive at all costs, wouldn't those costs include possibly working with someone that you may not necessarily be entirely 100% for in all ways? Does it really matter THAT much that the way he chose to point out that there is a possible security risk, is by being able and willing to exploit it and prove it? You can think of him as a 'pentester' for normal style networks. Right?

I just refuse to take this so called threat as a real threat, not only because it is out in the open, but also because he has suggested a way to fix it, and not only that, volunteered to help implement it.


If he were solely out for his own gain, would he do this? Would he not only want to change the reward structure, but ALSO, implement an extremely good reason for many people to USE the coin? Is this not what many people have said (including you) would bring the 'value' to the coin?


I don't know, I guess I just don't look at him as a negative thing. To me, if he were truly a negative only, he would have plotted anonymously, and continued to increase his power as much as possible, and bide his time, just waiting while the network decreases in size, not coming in to warn people that there is the possibility of this attack, and just attack when he can.

He most certainly wouldn't have offered to help by developing for the coin, and not solely by changing the reward.


If he had come in and suggested he develop for the coin, and given nothing more than "I'll change the reward", I wouldn't have supported that. But he didn't. He came in with many ideas, which I combined with my own, and came up with a structured plan, a future structure suggested, containing almost everything that every community request for change has included. A roadmap with details, a suggestion for changes, and reasoning as to why those changes would do what we think they'll do, structure for the team, and ideas to make things more functional, a way to fund the dev team and give ability for promotion, hiring of other devs, and more...

but all we can do is sit here and say "he's the enemy"? Sorry but I really can't see it that way.

I have had many conversations with him, directly. I can say for sure that he isn't against the coin. He would prefer to implement the changes in BURST as opposed to a clone, because he would like to see the coin succeed. The same reason as me.

The change in block reward is hardly a breach in contract. There was never a contract. Many coins have changed their reward structure, and even you are for a change in that.


So what we're mostly not agreeing on, is the person. To this I still say the same... Who else? Do we even have any way to be able to show a way to FIND someone else? Do you really think that not only are we going to find someone, but they're going to work for free, and not only that, but BUY coins, so that they can work for free, and hope that their work is enough to give enough future value to the coin to make it worthwhile... This seems an almost impossible task.

I am all for the coin having a healthy future, but the amount of other coins out there that are currently much more popular than BURST, do you really think that without some changes, maybe some fundamental ones, that it is going to magically become what we all want it to be?

Hope alone isn't going to accomplish this.

Fighting his attack by delisting the coin from exchanges is suicide. As you said yourself. So are we going to really do this?

I want to know how else we are going to get the network to stop declining.

1. there is no LEADERSHIP
2. it seems if your arguments are exhausted, then you bring your experience as botnet operator in - I assume you operate one, since only you are talking about them. I think that Haitch_**** are botnets.

BinLaden has pointed out that there is a threat to the coin. NOT necessary he is the threat, but if nothing changes, than he is in the pool position.

He pointed out what should be done.

I don't care if HE is a developer or an advisor, anybody can help, anybody can add opinions.

Facts are:
1. Dev team is gone
2. therefore no new features to expect
3. therefore no Angel investors interested
4. the price gone done
5. the network size is low
6. the low price makes mining an expensive hobby
7. by holding the coin in your wallet, makes the coin useless
8. we need reasons to use the coin, that can be markets, features, ...

9. we should move quickly

I never said I had a botnet. What if I do? In any case I am neither confirming nor denying it.

But let's get one thing clear, it's you who need my help. If you ask me nicely I will help. You are in no position to be demanding me anything.

You have a dying coin, you need help. I can provide. You have my terms, take it or leave it.
And yes, please do review my code, or anybody else's for that matter, before you run it on your machine.

1) I think this is a big mistake Bitladen made and, if implemented, can have negative effects on the confidence in the leadership. However, I see no problem that he shows his other side and contribute with his technical knowledge and tools. As he obviously have a botnet, all features he contributes to have to be reviewed extensively; I don't want my machines to be part of his network.

So: Due to these fundamental mistakes by him, I suggest that "he shows his before we show ours", meaning including him in core development. "Contribute and you shall be accepted".

2) This depends on how we define "fundamental". There have many posts today and I have actually not seen any precision in what is suggested. Please point me to it if it is posted.

3) I think funding is as necessary as a white-paper. The interesting thing is no IPO were done; instead the community and devs have proven dedication by delivering innovation and progress during a year. With this backing, a miner has the option to accept the "tax" or not. 10% seem very high though.

When I say funding is necessary, it doesn't have to be a "tax". The last weeks I have, in discussion with crowetic, collected a list of angel investors and early venture capital firms with seed money and interest in Fintech and blockchain technology. This might be a way to progress too, but it will require more work than I can handle. We will need a a) white-paper, b) a description of what has been done innovation-wise and a well-structured roadmap with calculations of costs, and c) some kind of a short, well-designed, easily accessible "booklet" to introduce the coin and the intended future.

However, when reading of a dev-tax, I do think seeking seed funding will be considerable harder than changing the block distribution in this respect. Also, even "seed money" from angel investors and early venture capital firms has it backsides, as they want something back: if not money so influence. However, would the community find this path interesting, I can probably deliver a list of about a 100 contacts in the area within a week.

 

That's great, I would favor a replacement, if the situation isn't fixed.

I did offer a solution, you firmly rejected it. I assume you have a better one. Do you?

FYI, I was not concerned by my earnings, I stopped being concerned about burst earnings a long time ago, it's a joke for me. I was merely concerned about the other miners. I would like people to get their ROI, as burst lives up to it's name. Nonetheless, should I get 51% I will not hesitate to take control of the blockchain. I might have pretended I don't have it if I was making profit out of burst, but I'm not. I'm still honestly trying to help. You should know. And you turning against me, is something of a disappointment.

So it becomes dead coin - a replacement coin will pop up, and we miners switch. If you want to do good for this coin, stop threatening to kill it, and offer something to boost it

that's too bad, because the alternative is deadcoin, that's what you're turning it into.
besides haitch, I had respect for you. you just lost it. is that a wise thing to do?

So build a better clone. We're not turning this coin into BitLaden/Coin

then im out of .15 btc a day. i will be crushed.
i'd love to see that actually. you will crush the holders, then it's time for a better clone

You get 51%, we request delisting from the exchanges - you have all the burst that can't be traded anywhere. You just killed the coin. congrats.

Paying for the servers is not a problem - I believe in this coin and want to do anything I can to help it succeed.

You know my thoughts on the block reward - resync it to a 1%/month devaluation.

Bitladen has threatened to destroy the coin - he can't be involved in the development of the coin.

 

pinball, that's quite a theory there.
you left out one aspect. when hashrate goes low enough i will be waiting there and take over the network.
then you will have to mine with 0 reward against me until maybe you can overpower me. until then other miners will get 0. explain the economics of this. why it should work

I'm not suggesting a value increase. I'm suggesting an increase in overall usage and network size. It would benefit all miners, not just bitladen. Thus more would join.

I don't think that you paying out of pocket for all of these things is right either. I think a decentralized project with people willing to set up tools and pools for, should be chipped in from the community. Do you find it fair that you have to pay these things out of your pocket for use of everyone else when they don't have to and this will never bring money back to you in any way?

Do you find it unfair that pools have fees associated? With which they're supposed to be able to pay their operating costs? Isn't the overall fee essentially the same idea but just to keep the overall coin being developed instead?

I think also that I did the most honorable thing and converted my pool fee to an asset, and I even run a 30TB miner for the asset as well, this asset is solely for the benefit of the community, and I have thus far not made a profit at all from it. I am not complaining about this, but I'm saying it isn't sustainable forever unless there's growth in one way or another, and the only way to keep the current model working, is by immense growth, which hasn't been happening.

I just have yet to see another proposed idea that makes more overall sense. It solves the issue of the network decrease, it solves the issue of the usage of the coin (which I know most people haven't seen yet, but they will soon when I edit my paper) and it solves the issue of the growth not matching up with the decline in reward and thus causing overall issues we're seeing now.

I don't know what else can be done, but I'm ready to hear other suggestions, unless you believe that everything is perfectly fine the way it is. I for one see the decline in all of the important things, as an issue. There have been no other whole suggestions that would be able to solve these issues.

Regardless of the person doing it, it is an open source project, and we could even implement a review system of the code before it is posted to the main git, or whatever, if trust of the developer is really the issue.

Being an open source project, it is easily reviewed to see if there are things going on that aren't what are said.

I just don't see the other options we have here? Unless you think everything is fine with the things that have been going on lately, and there's no issue here at all, what exactly should we do?

Crow, I pay out of my own pocket for the current Team server, I'm about to double my out of pocket cost with the the upgrade. I'm working on a bank/anonymous payment service, others are working on other tools. Increasing the block reward will not increase it's value, it'll increase what BitLaden can earn from his dumping. We need to increase the utility of this coin to increase it's value - Giving a botnet master even more reward will do nothing for it's value.

H.