Topic: [ANN][BURST] Burst | Efficient HDD Mining | New 1.2.3 Fork block 92000 - page 26. (Read 2170889 times)

Is mining burst profitable?

I believe that both Sia and Storj both 'work'. However, don't expect a drop-box like replacement. There's a lot of twiddling required and setup to get things to have the proper redundancy and all that. Filecoin had an ICO earlier this year and will be another competitor in that market.. so there's potential, but it's going to be a while for maturity.

As for PoC benefits, that's up to you. Similar to the question of whether it's worth using kW's of electricity to mine bitcoin. All depends on your situation and spare capacity/cheap electricity, etc.

Do Storj and Sia already work? There were a ton of projects like it, but as far as I've seen, they've all been stuck in development for years.

And is there a specific advantage to use PoC while not using the space for other things? Seems a bit of a waste.

(btw... price might fall under 0.000001 if the alt crash keeps going. I might have to get a bag-refill then.)

STORJ may be better than Sia, but it's completely unrelated to Burst

for me STORJ is better and simple.

Those are blockchains meant to let users buy and sell their own capacity. Burst uses capacity as a mining concept.. the space taken by Burst plots isn't useful for anything else. Storj and Sia are storing actual data (images, text files, backups, etc) for users in return for payment in those tokens.

What about Storj and Sia?

Nope, Burst is the only one using PoC (hdd mining).

Just picked up a bag of burst. love the tech. are there any other blockchains out there that use proof of capacity like burst?

Excelent summary. I promte burst until block first in crypto world in my country and still want to do that.

Good reply. Your post clearly shows the commitment of the PoCC in developing Burst into a top cryptocurrency. But I dont think that the fa-yerrr guy on Reddit is wrong in trying to create a controversial discussion because he was wrongly informed about Burst's distribution.

Hi,
I am trying to setup burst.
My progress is here

*  To mine here you need to set your "reward recipient" to BURST-SPAC-EWWF-CRX2-78Z6Z.
   This costs 1 BURST and you need to wait 4 blocks before it takes effect.


I need to 1 burst to proceed. may you send me 1 burst to this address


BURST-JVGH-896Q-JL6G-2JDEN
Thank you in advance

Finally some progress in development! Hopefully it will move price up, because after this last big correction many people lost faith in BURST..
Waiting for green columns on Poloniex 

I made a comment there on behalf of the PoCC. Obviously we disagree:

Rico666, coding in Haskell is also a hot topic for some group of developers who work on cryptocurrencies. I found this video on Youtube while browsing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjyiOXRuUdo

I also found this thread about starting a new Proof of Capacity chain in Burst's Reddit that might be of interest to you, or not, but it could start a good discussion on the topic.

https://www.reddit.com/r/burstcoin/comments/72oql0/would_it_be_a_good_idea_if_the_pocc_started_a_new/

According to him, copying NXT's strategy with Ardor by starting another blockchain project can be a better way than continuing on with the development of Burst. Do you agree?

Wallet active development: https://github.com/ac0v/burstcoin
More announcements: https://forums.getburst.net/c/burst-community-announcements (other projects)
or click the link "BURST Activities" in my sig.


If by slow you mean "slow resync time", that the wallet needs some time to resync with the network (last I heard was 12 hours from block 0), then yes, it could be faster and - spoiler alert - it will be faster in 1.3.6cg. You can alleviate the 100% CPU usage if you have a GPU and let that help out. Then it'll be a little faster and your CPU load will be low (while the GPU will show load only intermittently).

Other than that, the wallet is actually pretty fast for continuous operation. At the moment we will focus on the JAVA implementation, not because we like it, but because we actually got it to a point where it makes sense to build upon that rather than to throw it all away. If some enthusiastic young programmer comes along and wants to re-implement it in Rust, Go or whatever, we will not stop him. 

I used to own some BURST.... will have to look back into it and see if any active developments are taking place.  It's been a while.

Rico666, thank you so much for the thorough explanation and for the whole backstory on Crowetic. That explains so much. Anyway, is there a new implementation besides the one written in Java? Compatibility is nice but the wallet is slow, dont you think?

Certainly you refer to this exit post from crowetic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19868944

So to make some things clear:

• Crowetic is no developer and has never been. I do not say this to discredit him in any way, it's a simple fact he also stated himself many times. He was sysadmin and he had (maybe paid) developers to look into things. So I would see him as kind of "facilitator", but not developer.
• He is one man. So when you said "There were some developers who said..." you have blown things out of proportion. No developer and not plural.
• Even Crowetic stated - and I quote: "I fully believe the algo is able to be exploited". Now while this shows a strong belief, it is nothing else than that: a belief.

Crowetic believed many other things in his "Exit post", which were partially true (like the network not being able to handle the max num of transactions without forking at the time of his post) and some which were not true because as a non-dev he had not enough insight into these matters.

Again, I would like to state that all of this is in no way meant to discredit him. It's only meant as a clarification, so that "Word of mouth" doesn't start to skew the facts more and more.




Ok?

Now he also said he does believe some other things, which have proven to be untrue. Like BURST could only be repaired when written anew "from scratch up" and the similar.
That was provably untrue, because BURST today has already rock solid wallets/nodes - if you happen to use the right version.
https://explore.burst.cryptoguru.org/tool/observe (the number of valid nodes was somewhere in the single-digit percentage when Crowetic wrote his post)


If you look at the changes necessary to make BURST stable and being able to cope with max-TXs capacity, it was not that much. You just had to know/find where to apply your patch.

Nevertheless, in the meantime much more work happened on the BURST core. We actually started to make fundamental changes - which Crowetic also called for - to the code base to make it fit for future requirements. So the situation is not like "Maybe its better to give the PoCC more time to fix the core problems..."

The situation is much more such, that the PoCC and the remaining core devs have already fixed the problems that plagued BURST in July and are now already en route to implement things Crowetic wouldn't even have hoped for 3 months ago. Like DB independece, multiple DB backends which did require significant changes to the underlying infrastructure.

We are running a permanent TestNet and the wallet there is - intentionally - beaten rigorously. Because of this we have fixed errors and problems Crowetic (and others) weren't even aware of!
As problems of stability become a thing of the past, new paths open up for developing functionality and infrastructure. We are entering the "age of emancipation", where the BURST code base starts to be better in certain aspects than the original (and present) NXT code base. And this trend will continue - as we did already announce in our 1st announcement


Is there much work to do? YES! Is some magic ultra-rocket science needed? NO! Just plain old good software engineering, done by people with the skills, experience and dedication.

That's all it takes for now.


Of course, we do have some magic ultra-rocket science available when needed. 

I'm sure the storage space would be growing much faster if it was broken. I've seen no published proof that it is broken.