Topic: [ANN][BURST] Burst | Efficient HDD Mining | New 1.2.3 Fork block 92000 - page 192. (Read 2170648 times)

I don't take these as threats, and I also think that if he's doing it in public, it is to bring awareness. If someone truly wanted to do this to simply attack the coin, why would they talk about it openly? I think he has an interesting way of telling us that the coin is great, and that he doesn't want it to go under, but it will if we don't make changes. I guess it is about interpretation. But I still say, then WHO? Who will do this? Can do it? I don't even know where to start looking for someone to take over a project of this magnitude. Do you? I welcome suggestions here absolutely.

Okay, then what do we do to keep miners from walking off. Even running my pool is costing me out of pocket. Is this something that can continue forever? Also, like bitladen said, he's not the entire network, this would benefit everyone the same. Even the holders, because I truly believe it would make the coin immensely more popular. Miners are the foundation, bring them, give use to the coin, and the rest follows. Losing miners, and having things cost more than they are making, is bad.

The tax is up for discussion, but you yourself should see how much willingness there is to donate to a project that people call innovative and seemingly want to hold forever, and without these donations, we are expected to come up with the money for promotion, etc from our own pockets? I don't see how this is more fair.


Definitely, everyone join the chat, look forward to seeing you all there.

I appreciate the opinions Haitch, and you know I respect you greatly, but I would also like to see some counter-suggestions and something we could put into play ASAP. Waiting around for the original dev to return I just don't think is a viable option, do you?

Crow, I've worked with you on a number of projects, but these ideas I can't support.

1) BitLaden as the dev. No. He can't threaten to destroy the coin one day then become the main dev the next.
2) Fundamental changes to the block reward . No. Bitladen wants them to enrich himself.
3) 10% block tax to fund devs. NO. If a dev believes in this coin, buy some and profit on their work to increase the value.

As a side note. the Dev team have setup a server for the community to discuss Burst, Crypto currencies, life in general ... head over to chat.burst-team.us to sign up and join in.

H.

Is it possible to add staking? Could hash power come from a staking wallet?

I have read all your posts today.

It is my personal impression that you do not believe in voluntary interaction, but instead believe that it is okay to force people to do something if you have superior power, that it is okay to steal if you have a knife and the victim do not have one. That it is okay to write a contract and then rewrite it, if you find  yourself in a situation where your physical power is bigger than the one you had an agreement with.  This makes you totally untrustworthy in my view, your word is worth nothing, because as soon as you have some kind of leverage, you will not hold your worth, unless you clearly see immediate threads of retaliation. We simply work in different ways.

I never threathen people unless it is because they have taken something that was mine, and i want it back.  I also do not threathen people i can esaily harm, without it having any consequences for me.

However, it is just words, you have never actually done anything bad until now. Your threat of a 51% attack has probably scared away a lot of burst owners, hence some of the price softness, but probably not so much miners, as the large part of cost of mining is upforont. Once you have the setup running, running costs are pretty small. The major risk is if you get 51% and miners loose all their mined burst, and they have to replot to some other currency.

so...

my reaction to all this is that i will increase my mining power, that is the best reaction i can think of.

If i buy burst you make more when selling your mined coins right after you have mined them. I don't want that. I want burst to gain features and usefulness for end users. With that in place, everything else will follow.

If i launch a new burst with your plots blocked i will be using threaths and bullying myself, i would not do that. Only if you actually succeed with an attack and get caught blocking out other people's blocks or transactions, then i will make a place that people can chose to go to, if they don't like what you did to BURST

If i sell my burst, i risk selling it to you. You might be doing all this just to create fear and to buy up burst on the cheap. After all it's cheaper buying than mining, all costs inclusive.

but... if i buy some more terabytes, you will have to do the same, to succeed your attack. So that i will do. I'll add 10TB within a month, and probably 16TB a month after that, until further notice, so I advice you budget for at least that increase too.

As a precaution against someone being a dick in a 51% attack i will plot to new addresses, i propose you do the same to protect you from being easily blocked, some other dick might block you even before you ever attempted an attack, and that is not fair imo.

Anyone else who thinks bitladen is bullying and not living up to the non-agression-principle, should consider similar action.. beef up your mining, mine some easy coins now, where the net size is low.

When bitladen go away, or ceases threathening with forcing changes to burst using brute force and a 51% attack, the price will rise and your investment might pay off.

On a side note, considering the work i spent just getting 60 or so TB mining in a stable fashion, it is good craftmanship to get 1PB rolling. I understand why you put in some effort on the miner and plotter part of things, with 1TB+, there are some savings if you can have one box mining more terabytes fast enough. I am running a modified version of the java miner, but those modifications were mostly just to get it working at all, i started out on windows 7, and that OS self destructs when you start mining tens of terabytes.

I don't think doing a bunch of direct arguing here is a great plan. Bitladen has already said he doesn't WANT to do this, and isn't using it as any way to "enforce" the community into taking his side. What we should really do here first, is take a look at what is going on currently, with the current system, and decide whether we all think that the coin will last in this way...

How many miners have quit already? Does it matter to them that the coin doesn't cost that much to mine? Doesn't seem like it. If they aren't making anything, there is no incentive to mine the coin. We need to give this incentive, anyone disagree?

In order to make the current system work the way it should, there would have to be major money going into the coin to get the price where it should be. Can anyone do this? Does anyone have the money to get the coin to the price where it would be affective to mine? I for one do not, I wish I did, but I do not.

I have myself and quite a few family members invested into this coin. Do I believe that changing the structure breaches some 'contract'? No, I do not. What I worry more about, is the coin getting to a point where people just refuse to mine it, then we don't even have a network with which to run our outstanding technology. What do we do then? Then getting some use for the coin that will bring value to it is pointless.

I believe what is most important here is keeping the coin alive, I also believe that miners will continue to quit (aside from the few that just support the network and aren't here for monetary reward, which isn't THAT high of a number.) unless we DO SOMETHING. What I'm trying to do here, is get SUGGESTIONS.

If you believe that without changes, the coin will succeed, tell me WHY you think this, and give things that you think will happen in order to prove this. If you believe there should be modifications, tell me WHAT those are, and why you think those would work.

IMO, I believe that the idea bitladen has set forth, is a good one, the dev fund can be negotiated and if we decide to do that in another fashion, that's whatever, but honestly everyone SAYS they will support the development, but how many actually DID? In my experience I've seen very few donations. You can think of it like a tax if you'd like, but being able to KEEP a dev team would be MUCH easier with the ability to pay them. Agree?

I think also, that without any core developer at all, the coin will sit for too long, there are many people in the crypto community that are FAST PACED, and if we don't keep up, we will fall behind, and falling behind to the community is the same as dying.

These are all my opinioins, so feel free to contradict them with your own if you would like.

My paper does have a lot to do with the many discussions I have had with bitladen, and the fact that he doesn't want this coin to be unsuccessful. No matter your view on how he does things, can any of you say that you're not only CAPABLE, but WILLING to take on BURST for FREE? If anyone else here is capable, willing, and able to help with the core development of the coin, provide a roadmap that will be done, be active, and work together with us to help keep things going in a positive direction, please let me know. If not, do you really believe that having the core development done by him would cause more problems than not having anyone doing it? I highly doubt that.

Not only this, the plan includes making a VERY viable use for BURST, and something that could very easily become EXTREMELY popular. This would be something that I truly believe would be able to further the coin's network and value absolutely.

Also, this doesn't have to be a permanent 'takeover', if the main developer comes back, wants to take over again, or another developer comes along that is WILLING and ABLE to, bitladen has already said that he would have no problem with letting that happen. So, you see, this isn't about him, this is truly about the coin, and wanting to see the best mining style become as popular as we know it can be, and the most valuable tech become used and cherished as much as some people here cherish it.

The details are to be discussed, but the overall idea is solid, and if you disagree, I would truly like to see why.

Bitcoin's model, only worked for bitcoin (and even that is up for debate) because the growth kept up. The only reason it did was because it was the ONLY coin like it, and the only tech like it at the time, so it became the 'one and only'. Now, in the days with multiple altcoins coming out on literally a daily basis, we must devise a model that works for this. I truly believe that a solid return for miners, will keep them coming. This is coming from one of the original BURST miners, one of the original pool owners, and one of the original true believers in the coin.

I used to fully support the inflationary model that is Bitcoin and BURST, but the more I see what is actually happening VS what we thought would, the more I see that a change is necessary. Altcoins don't have the cult following bitcoin does, and the multitudes cause the growth to be VERY difficult to keep up with the dropping reward. Thus we get what we're seeing today, drop in reward, drop in price, and thus, drop in network hashrate. All of these things combine, and they will most likely continue (my opinions still) unless we make a pretty drastic change to the way things work.

I wouldn't be posting this if I didn't truly believe it. The growth of BURST didn't keep up, now we're here, and before the coin loses any more of its network, (because 30TB makes you a few bucks a month and it is to the point that even running HARD DRIVES isn't cost effective, we've got a problem.) we make a decision, get development moving, and make the things happen that will reverse this problem.

Like I keep saying. If there is a better idea out there, or if you support the original model, please prove to everyone why and how it will work. But it is my truly honest opinion that we can see right in front of us, the model failing. Am I wrong? Why?

feel free to inspect the blockchain



I can always replot. And if you all decide to kill the coin, I think my point is well made. You are in the process of killing it as of now.

Again don't blaim me. YOU CHOSE not to have hashpower. I just deliver the consequences of your actions.

And don't be concerned with my costs, that's my own business, and I chose not to make it public knowledge.
And don't speculate of the costs of a replot either. Ban my address, then you will see how fast I can replot. Oh wait, the only person who knows how to do that and still is active on this thread is me.

Your investment in plotted hardware must be kinda on the high side, or perhaps you are bluffing, who knows.

Can you document somehow the size of the total plots that you control?

If you get to near 51% we could ask the exchanges to suspend burst due to risk of an attack, then it becomes a waiting game. How much does it cost you per day to have those disks spinning?   My cost is in the single digit dollars for my 60TB or whatever, but i gather 50 times more is an annoying cost.. I can afford to wait for a while until we update the software to throw you out.  people can of course choose (i am a voulentarist, will not force anything upon anyone) between a version that will trade with a guy that openly threthens a 51% attack, and then a version that blocks him out. You would likely have to replot, the exchanges would likely choose the wallet that exludes your plotted addresses. re-plotting will add to your expenses. While we can use our old plots.

That's what you get for not having hashpower. Don't blaim me, I'm just the messenger. Yet, these are the rules of the cryptogame. As such you should encourage decentralized hashpower. Which requires financial incentive.

You have to understand that the whole security of your funds relies on the hashpower. This is in the whitepaper of bitcoin. Not something I'm making up.

P.S. I just realized what you said. HAHAHA. haven't they already "hunted" me down all this time? I can assure you that my identity is very well concealed. But don't take my word for it, give it a try, uncover me. It's fun though, you are technically threatening authority intervention on a DECENTRALIZED currency. You have to see the irony in this. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the crypto community opposes - not necessarily illegally - but opposes the authorities.

reg. miners :

The early miners ( i'm not one of the earliest ) they took on a lot more risk that you ever did, and they have been paid for that. BURST was new and flaky and just setting up mining and plotting was a headache, they built the docs, the pools and the community.. they crashed their operating systems, they paved the way for we that followed. They have taken lots of risk and put in a lot of work. I don't think it is the least bit fair to steal their burst and give them some other kind of burst in  replacement. If you want another incentive plan, create a new burst with your modifications and let people willingly shift to that one, forcing a changed coin on the existing community is not fair imo, it destroys all trust in you. If you don't belive in keeping promises, we can only deal with you out of fear.

reg. developer fund :

I am in principle for some kind of organization that funds development and is paid for by people - but it has to be voluntary,  and the owners of BURST never agreed that they should pay taxes to a development fund. It would be a major change in the state of affairs to enforce a fee per transaction that go to a development fund.

Also, a development fund where the usage of funds is not decentralized, needs someone in control to make spending decisions. The moment you set that up, you'll have government goons and criminals trying to get at the guys in control and either try to take over the control, or to steal the control. Does not work very well. Crypto currencies is all about decentralized solutions where you cannot attack a centralized point of failure or gain control by compromizing a centralized server.


However, you could set up a virtual company that control a BURST address, that people can voluntarily send fees to, and that company could be centralized controlled and could pay for development in the BURST recieved from donations. You could even add to the wallets, a field where 1 BURST is per default sent to the development fund per transaction, but the end user should have an easy way of opting out , otherwise it's not voluntary, it's stealing, especially if there are users out there who disagree with the new tax.  The setup might be expanded so that it was possible to register a fund on the chain, and so that the user could select what fund (or none) is being donated to, when doing transactions.  a fund setup could be recieving BURST address, name, short description, website url or whatever.  the user choice could then be a list of names, with the most popular fund on top.


But don't force change onto the community using a 51% attack. Or be prepared to have to fend off a lot of people who believe you are a thief and a criminal, especially if you ever change a transaction. With anyone in control, burst degenerates to a normal centralized bank. The one in control will have governments and thugs all trying to go come steal his control away, to tax him, to claim protection money, whatever.... Perhaps even users who find that the attack is a violation of NAP and thus find it morally okay to come after you, will start to hunt you down. You will not be safe.  ( this is not a threat, i would not come after you, i'd just start an originalBURST starting from somewhere on the chain before the attack). My money would then be in both BURST and originalBURST but originalBURST would probably have a list of burst addresses banned for generating blocks due to involvment in the 51% attack.

I think we heard now enough of what could happen and how it could be done.

Let's focus on how to implement solutions and bring up the coin again. Let's MOVE and not just talk.
I do hope that any solution will not require a re-plotting. Since BinLaden has the most plots I guess he will not like that either ;-)

Does Crow's document add anything useful to this situation?

1) Crowetic is trusted

2) We do have multisig functionality via at's.

You don't fully understand, but you are on the right track.
You understand that in order for the attack to be performed, all blocks are mined by the same miner. Yes? This means that I still have the same hashpower, but the network only accepts my blocks and rejects the other blocks. During such attack it appears that the network hash halved its size, because the other half gets rejected.

Nobody is talking about changing historic blocks.
It's not my intent to double spend either. Though I could, and it would mean you getting BURST suspended from the exchanges. DEATH! I would do such thing only if the rewards become laughably low.

You have no way to "cancel" my blocks. I will have dumped the coin before exchanges update to your "revised" version of the wallet. Thus they can never accept such change, for obvious reasons. Nor would this stop me from receiving my money.

Then I can simply change ip and replot. But then again the exchanges would already be at the impossibilty of accepting your updated wallet.

And there's a small technicality too. Who's gonna do the wallet modifications? Your dev has quit.

And yes, I have done this before.

Then a multisig, requiring multiple signatures to release funds. Not sure if burst has the option, will have to check

There is a problem, there is no "trusted member". However, BURST has the feature of ESCROW, with that we could manage "trust".

From bitcoin wiki https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power


Assuming ( this might not be the case ) that a burstcoin blockchain 51% attack would work about the same way as a bitcoin blockchain 51% attack, all you can do is to double spend your burst, so we would probably have to stop using burst until we make a new wallet that ignores your ip addresses, your burst addresses etc. for a period of time.  Then we'd go on with the chain from just before you attacked, and you will have to replot your devices cause we know what burst address was baked into the plot files used in the attack.  good luck plotting all that disk space again, it's costly in power and time.

we all have a copy of the blockchain on our harddisk as it looked before your attack, when your ips and burst addresses have been "banned" in a new release of mining software, we will start at that latest uncompromized block, and you would have to re-attack using drives plotted to other addresses than the ones you have used previously.  We might not be able to figure all the burst addresses you use, but it will probably be easy enough to figure most of them. Perhaps you have been clever and plotted each TB to a new address, but at least we can take out all the ones you used to generate blocks.

Ok I have a hardcore idea listen up:

1) The dev or a more sr. member here starts a crowfunding to collect 2-3 bitcoins
2) The person then starts a sig campaign on this forum for full members & above advertising BURST, the BURST forum, or the BURST site, or all 3 of them
3) Tons of new investors/participants/speculators will be interested, and price will be pumped probably above 100 satoshi
4) Miner reward problem resolves, as now miners will be more profitable, more will come, and 51% attack will be unlikely

What do you think people?

---

(Otherwise just keep buying BURST & its ASSETS)

I take it you refer to my solution, as being the only one proposed thus far.

I request the reward increase and it's proportionality to the hashpower.
Currently, the incentive is to mine here FIRST. As you would get lots of coin for cheap, and so did the first miners. As a result, there is no incentive to mine here one year later (NOW). So even if you did mine here first, and held to the coin, hoping its value will go 100x - which it didn't, it went more like (1/10)x - there will soon not be enough hashpower to guarantee your funds, so you will end up holding ZERO.

This will fix the following.
1. miners will have incentive to mine here ANYTIME - including NOW. And not just at coin launch.
Therefore hashrate will go up, and the holdings will be protected
2. price could go down (but it's going down right now anyway), but as far as miners dumping are concerned, they will not want to dump below their mining costs. Should it go below that, it is safe to say that the holders are dumping. The cheap coin released in the first months of this coin is to blame, or in other words your reward structure. But we will have to see how this unfolds.
BTW, considering current mining costs, does it make any sense that miners could be dumping right now. I get a lot of accusations of this. But do the math. Would it make any sense for me to dump at this price? It is the holders that are dumping, no doubt.
3. volume will go up. which the healthy thing to have.

If you don't like my solution, then you holders should pump the price, it will have the same effects as above. But if you are going to do it, what are you waiting for? What have you been doing for the past year? I find it hard to believe that you ever will, as long as you're the only ones holding this coin.

I am also proposing a 10% dev donation of each block's value. This will go to an address controlled by a trusted member of your community.
Your dev has quit. You do need to develop this coin. This is the perfect solution to this problem.
And it scales well. If the coin becomes popular, it will generate a massive dev fund, that you can use to do all sorts of funky things.

Finally, I am volunteering to make the above mentioned changes to the daemon, should you ever agree to them. And possibly further development and promotion of this coin.  And just to make it clear, I do not require any payment for this.
Yes, I do mine it, and the changes will hopefully cover my costs. But keep in mind, I still only have 25% of the hashpower. 75% of the rewards will go to the rest of the mining community. And it's expected that as a result I will no longer hold 25%, but less. Not due to my capacity shrinking, but due to network size growing.


PS: I would throw in my other projects involving this coin, namely a highly efficient pool, new mining protocol (similar to stratum - even better, i'd have to say), client code for this protocol, and a dcct port for windows.  

That is if you accept my proposal.
Thus far you've only been hostile towards me, you cannot expect any contribution from me before I see an act of good faith on your behalf.

Yes, don't bother to remind me that I'm an egomaniac, who thinks it's superior to everybody else.
As far as this coin is concerned, this is true. 25% of the hashpower says I am. and 51% would make it's all mine. Now if you'd rather be against me, suit yourself.

This is actually a thing of supply and demand, as demand increases (demand for burst coins), then the quantity supplied will increase (netsize), and so also the opposite and inverse. Nowhere is there any law stating that there is a proportional relationship between the supply and the demand, and so a 50% drop in price doesn't necessarily mean a 50% drop in supply. It does however guarantee that there will be a drop in supply when the price drops.

There are a lot of economic factors involved here, and so you can't look at the past of price vs. netsize, and a lot has changed, including peoples' opinions on whether or not burst has a future. We also have a lot more features now, and the threat of an attack, all which would affect the netsize vs. price relationship.

As pointed out in previous post:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12356011


We need people to invest in BURST assets, and by that they will push BURST price up too.

Now this can be 2 type:

• External: new investors from outside interested in BURST or it's assets
• Internal: miners instead of dumping BURST after mining at horrible prices, they invest in in BURST assets to earn more

FIRST STEP IS FOR EVERY BURST ASSET MANAGER TO LIST THEIR ASSETS IN THE SECURITIES BOARD:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=78.0

Miners get paid a fixed number of burst each day, that pool is divided by all miners.  The amount of total hardware used to mine wil almost solely depend on what the current and projected price of BURST is.

The price of burst will not go up because we have more miners. It will go up if you can buy stuff with burst, or if you can store value in burst, or if you can register contracts or ownership or the like with burst, or if you can store files with burst or any other imaginative use we can think up.

What we need is products and solutions, aimed at the potential users of burst.  And people to concieve and produce and market and perhaps finance those products.

For instance, if a webshop owner would like to add pay with burst to his off the shelf webshop, it should be easy and documented how he should go about to do that.  If a cafe owner would like to have a barcode reading tablet app that recieved burst, and a cafe customer would like a barcode scanning and burst sending phone wallet, like bitcoin wallet - they should be able to go to a website and easily download the needed programs and get set up.

You could also scan the web for products already using bitcoin and at least one other altcoin, and improve on that product so it also can accept / pay / whatever with BURST.  Piggybagging on NXT products is probably relatively easy, but as burst might be seen as a close competitor to NXT we must try to emhasize synergy opportunities.

almost nobody is using burst right now, there is a huge market out there, but someone has to figure out the products and services needed, and code up solutions.

If burst price go up factor N , then we will probably atract so much more petabytes that the payoff per petabyte stays relatively constant, it's probably close to 1 to 1.  Burst halves in price - network size will begin working down towards half what it was before... if burst quadruples in price, network size will start growing until it also has quadrupled.  As harddisc prices go down, network size will go bigger, as the balance is (disregarding electricity) price-per-terabyte = value_of_burst_recieved_by_mining_one_terabyte

if the burst price is low and the network size is low too, nobody will bother spending more than burst total value to do an 51% attack, cause in the best case they just get all the burst, but if that is only worth 100K usd, then no professional it criminal will find it worth a few months of work, as well as a lot of equipment rental to get at those money.

If burst price go up 1000 times, the payoff of an attack will be 100 million usd, and then you will have criminals willing to spend a few million to try and get at some of those burst, but on the other hand, the miners will also have 1000 times more disk space building the chain, so the criminals have a much harder problem to solve.

I can only see one way forward, that is to keep burst parameters as they are, and build solutions for the rest of the world, so they are attracted to USE burst.  then the price go up, and then the miners will come all by themselves.

If someone have a set of initial parameters that is way better than what burst has currently, they should fork the software, and start a new coin with these parameters. I would welcome such a move, especially if the two coins could share some code, such that they would not have to reinvent miners and pool and all.  However it is my quite firm belief that burst already has one of the very best set of parameters of all the altcoins out there. BURST can be used as store of value, which is a problem soon to be found in many real currencies and already found in many altcoins.

If burst loses 50% of its value and the network size does not move to a trend toward a drop of 50% then that would in fact be a sign that something is wrong with the incentive structure. It might also mean the network size will not rise if burst rises in value, and it is quite important that the network size do that.