Topic: [ANN][BURST] Burst | Efficient HDD Mining | New 1.2.3 Fork block 92000 - page 294. (Read 2170648 times)

Haven't been posting here for a while now, but I've been mining and trading BURST.

What I want to say is: LET'S PUMP!

For the last month I kept selling at top buy, then buying like 10-20% below, and I turned 1 BTC into 1.5 BTC. I still have 1 BTC the buy book @120. And selling 500k more, and will make another buy order with the BTC
If everybody did that, the price would be rising.

Just holding the coin and waiting for the price to go up does not work, or at least doesn't have to do anything with you holding the coin.

Everybody should sell like 10% of their coins at top sell, like say 133 at the moment, and then don't withdraw the btc but make a buy order 10% below the price you sold, which would be at the moment 120
If everybody did that, the price has to rise, because of the buy orders.

I know some people advocate investing in PR, but that's no longer necessary, nor will it do the trick. The coin is already on Poloniex and Bittrex, so the PR did their job a long time ago.
Now it's our job to pump it. Everybody, just sell a few of your coins and put the BTC on the buy book, and then the price will increase. That's how it works.  I see there was a buy up to 134 today, so somebody is buying, now it's a good time.

And what's up with burstbank? dead?  

Well that was entertaining.

@Catbref. Have you looked into why Runaufu's miner doesnt like burst.ninja?

Yes yes, I'm fully aware of your distaste for the current UI. lol. It was never a permanent one, it was just something to use until we got everything squared away.

Sent 150K, and I might consider mining there if the UI is decent 

Btc development going to MIT. Thats hurts... no trust to it, imho. Hope brst will smash it in future. really, i`m a true fan. keep movin` friends, to bright and stable burst future.

Bounty wallet address - BURST-CSPG-BPBU-R985-2YC33

Thank you all so much!

both my donations have been sent. http://burstcoin.eu/address/37539858111357614

The donation nagging begins again

I just donated 0,05BTC to 17SrpSXT6Zv1DvtyoSaSM1mzGhCMX7szRg. We should be up to 0,3BTC when it's confirmed. At the BURST account, we have ~947K at BURST-BRL2-BDNK-EZW8-5F3V8

Apart from that we have, I think, 1,56BTC for the ACCT PR coming up.

Basically, the money we get donated is significantly lower than what we need for doing all the things we want.



I just want to state there is a third way of donating: to actually contribute to the work we do. Do you know graphics? Do you make pictures? Do you write real well? Can you proof-read texts? Do you have ideas of how we can push BURST forward? Do you have contacts or know people who might want to work with BURST? Many of the things we have to do on a daily basis is time-consuming, and we could need help with those too.

If you are able to contribute in such a way (or similar), please write an email to [email protected] (rather then PMs as those often end up in a mess).

If you contribute, your name will forever be noticed here http://burstcoin.info/about/#Angels and you get economic compensation in relation to the work you do. Of course we appreciate free work, as the whole Team is doing, but we are willing to pay for certain services.

---

That said, please do remember to donate your spare BURST or mBTC. We have make a lot happen with them, and without them something, frankly, we wont be able to do.

• Do you think we do a good job and believe in BURST, send a donation, even tiny.
• Do you think you can contribute to the development by your skill or connection, email [email protected]

Thank you from the DevTeam of BURST

increasing the amount of work to verify a nonce should be for the average wallet user no real issue since there will also be checkpoints added.
for pools this may turn into a big challenge since most current pools seem to have already issues with the nonce verification under high load.
i tested it out and can say all pools except the dev2 one have them (if you run one of them pm me to share info about).

still with poc2 there have computations to be done on pool side. every modification to the amount of work to verify the submitted results tends to dramatically increase the running costs on pool side (even if technical design flaws have been fixed in the pool code).
my assumption for what a pool owner gets in fees is something about 2.5m burst per year (combined past and furture block rewards).
this means at current prices it is really tough to not pay the server costs out of the own pocket.
for long term this is a really bad perspective since developing and hosting a site is almost more than a fulltime job (24/7).
burst itself requires a good mining support to create blocks and confirm transactions with them.
since the current diff level is much too high for miners with only a couple of hdds burst requires a way for these people to get some coins for their attempts to mine a block.

from techical perspective submitted nonces are used to distribute the mined coins to the miner and the pool submits the best nonce into the blockchain if a block is mined. this concept is simply cloned from pow coins without inventing something on the engineering level burst itself has.
what if the miners can submit their own blocks into the blockchain and the miners wallet sends a signed message about history nonces over the blockchain to the pool?
it wont be spamming the blockchain with useless messages. it would make use of blockchain technology (for which fees get payed) and enable individuals to simply team up their resources in a completely secure anonymous way. since this would be a distributed pool there wont be a single point of failure during mining.

what about a distributed pool feature as next big announcement? does any coin has one?

i already thought of simply doing this using the at technology but it makes only sense for big miners due to the code execution fees.
since all miners i know personally have enough tb to mine solo we don't need to develop anything at current diff levels.
in theory the new feature would only require to send out 8 byte for each block as message to the pool address. this results in running costs of 12-13 burst a day for each miner.
on pool side all messages would be collected and for each miner there would be a maximum of one nonce for each block to verify if the signed message wont be sufficient.
the tricky part which requires development within the wallet is to secure the funds for the pool.
with the current reward assignment implementation a miner cannot submit the block to the network.
i have no suggestion for how to integrate/do this but i think a few additional functions should be sufficient to archive all this.
for the miner the main difference would be that they require a synced wallet even for pool mining or rely on a online wallet to which the access may be sold in the burst market.

anyone thinks this does make sense or is total rubbish?

PEOPLE SUPORT PR TEAM AND STOP DUMP TO BUY PIZZAS
+50 k from me to Crowetic for the fantastic job (when send me bounty account)
(sorry for my english i m SPARTAN......) 

Just making the quote correct we are with you, bro!

I have put Elmit on ignore. He is a thief and not a very bright one at that. I suggest that you all do the same to keep this community a more pleasant experience. He has been exposed. People need to do their due diligence and should figure it out now.

Unfortunately, it is. PoC2 is simply hash reversal table (the task is "find a number which hashes to target decided by network"). Current implementation uses between 24 to 32 bits. Making it larger is very difficult without resorting to non-linear tricks (DLP, or the hash arena of current PoC).

Yes, it can be a bit reshuffled. Note that more than 4096 scoops presents additional challenge when plotting, but other than that it works. Also, PoC is currently fairly difficult to verify (you need to do the whole hash arena thing to check a single nonce).


Yes, jumpy target is always related to insufficient number of samples averaged (current retarget algo AND using small portion of scoops both contribute to this). It remains to be seen if jumpy target in and itself is a problem though - save for faulty implementations which miscalculated the average and it was possible to drive down the difficulty, there were no exploits to this date.

I could never spot ANY help, but complains from you and your team.
Even the first settings I was asking and got wrong answers. So it seems that your team is just trying to let no other pool beside yours.

If you DO know what is wrong, why not tell? I am not the only one using this code. Why not post it as an issue to git hub?
No pool has a working link to the transactions(, but I did!) And exactly THAT link was complaint on. So it is a simple fix, as you did: Remove the link!

If I know something I help, not so your team!
Any question I had was answered as: You are an idiot, you run a pool and you do not know that? THAT kind of attitude makes it impossible to fix things.

The asset script IronTiga was completely wrong. Did not fit for that kind of asset. Even the offset of the time was wrong by 21 days or so. All I do for BURST, pool has been criticized by your team. I can live with that. I prepared some surprises though.

IronTiga might be busy now, cleaning up after the earthquake, depending where he lives. I suggest to use your VM for now anyway.

So, again, read my initial question and try to give your opinion to it.

By not answering, by not telling what is wrong with Urays code, you do not make it better.

To fix something, the fact must be first seen. I could not yet "catch" such a situation. I was not at the time there, so all can be true, but I believe, based on the attitude towards me, it is more likely not true.
When I look at the pool all seems normal. So I started questioning, what if it is true, what could be a reason of not paying out.
The first thing I found is, that Uray did not count the transaction fee. If you have a few miners as I had, nothing can happen, because the preset minPayout is set to 250. That means, as long you do not have amount of miners (assuming each transaction fee is 1 Burst) plus the pool fee is less than the 250, nothing will be missed.

Further, it should not happen, because the next round pay out keeps a part for the next round. Therefore Never should be all paid out!

Next was to look at other pools balance. Again, assuming that Urays code is trying to pay and could not I thought it might be that the balance is too less.
So I came to the question. Why some pools have balance close to zero, some have excess above the daily mining. Both values seems for me not right.

My conclusion is: If more quality miners are mining, always new rewards flow in and you will not come close to zero.

I am not putting my head in the sand. I am listening, but could not find any solid evidence others than hear say.


And get back in time and think when it started! Why, out of the blue, IronTiga slammed PetaByte? What do you expect to do? Just let this happen, or just look at other assets?

Honestly, I do not care if you like me or not! Lol!
However, I gave up to tell you when I see something wrong on your pool, because it is just taken the wrong way.

Oh wow, I didn't even see this... Come on man, really? A botnet? It makes perfect sense. He's doing like what that Timk foo supposedly did, putting miners on computers he works on... that makes total sense... for everything.

Great, thank you brother. I was thinking that I might up it some more and add .5 BTC on top or something too, we'll see how it goes like this and then maybe add more. Bro, you SHOULD BE mining on ninja though. lol.

We don't like you, but that's beside the point.

All uray code does have the bug, (inherently) however most other pools using it have fixed it. See, that's the beauty of open source code. We have been telling YOU to fix it, but you haven't even TRIED.

We all know you removed the links becuase that is all you could figure out how to do. The thing is, when our stuff goes down, we tell people, and fix it. I'm very aware of the blockex being down. Tiga handles it, and he's busy. But he will fix it, and if he doesn't in a reasonable amount of time, I can. But I prefer to let my people have full control over their projects unless I NEED to step in. I have already setup a completely new VM on my dacentec VMWare host that will be used for the blockex, as it's apparent the current VM isn't powerful or stable enough.

You know exactly what you're doing, Elmit (well, as far as the miners and money "issues" on the pool. Basically anything else, no way.) and it would be nice if you would just tell people, and quit being this way. Your stuff would be a lot better if you would just allow people to help you instead of being... well, you.




Haitch,

    I think we should just let this go now, it is clear that this fool will never change. So all we can do is let the community know and move on. No point in continuing this. Everyone can clearly see who is on top in this argument, and I'm certain that people are aware by now of his pool and asset issues. We've done what we can do, maybe now is the time to let it be? I'm not telling you what to do, merely suggesting we just let this idiot be. He's gonna continue doing the same bullshit and we know it.

edit: scratch that, screw this guy.

I'll add 150K to this of my own money (and I'm not part of the Byte Enterprises team nor even mining at ninja).

Crowe, if you can, post this as a separate thread so you might attract people outside the BURST community.


(i'll be back soon)

thanks for your reply,
For now I think to waiting for more details about new Poc2 algo before buy new systems...

H.,

I do not understand what you try to say:

1. Is it not allowed to mine on one IP with multiple users?
2. Is it not allowed to mine within a private network with multiple users?
3. Is it not allowed to mine on one hard disk with multiple users?
4. Is it not allowed to mine from UE or Kiev?
5. If you have no idea - as you stated, then why do you answer to my question? Worse, far far away from the question?

I also don't understand your question, why I maintain a zero balance. It is anyway not true, but less than 23.76% of the last day's pay out.
Is it not allowed to have a low balance? Could it be, that the pool paid out all, while other pools keep EXCESSIVE MINER's BURST in the POOL's wallet?
Why are you asking only ME about zero balance and not all other pools?

I don't think that we will shutdown so quickly! Why should we? We have a solid miner base, who are not just registered as miner, but also DO mine. The pool is working fine and your noise does not really bother, ... in fact I find it very amusing. As more you and co talk, as more miners I get.

Glad that a new pool comes up with a .ga at the end, ... I hope he makes a lots of advertisement, .... for me, because .ga are not resolved here. I just need to add: "... or mine at MiningHere", ...

I am already excited to see the new design of your pool. We also consider to do something, but without the tv testing screen. More like dev pool, simple, but working. Or just the HowTo page, ....  Stay tuned, ...