Topic: [ANN][BURST] Burst | Efficient HDD Mining | New 1.2.3 Fork block 92000 - page 365. (Read 2170648 times)
March 09, 2015, 02:05:55 PM
lets watch this, diff is back to 17PB... if the guy with the 6h 1000+ has find a way, within the next 24h the diff has to go up again to 25PB....
March 09, 2015, 01:44:25 PM
And someone just added a extra 5PB to the network? I don't think it's people just plotting out excess storage... ROI is up to two years now... I can only fathom someone found out a way to mine over cloud storage easily... or someone figured out how to mine without plotting.
I think it's some other factor that it causing these big fluctuations in the network. If a person did have access to a vast amount of data storage surely they would bring it online 10,50 or even 100TB at a time?
March 09, 2015, 12:30:23 PM
And someone just added a extra 5PB to the network? I don't think it's people just plotting out excess storage... ROI is up to two years now... I can only fathom someone found out a way to mine over cloud storage easily... or someone figured out how to mine without plotting.
March 09, 2015, 12:14:02 PM
has a CF a unique ID or something else, that if there where a web wallet, i could give the specific url to my CF a person and my CF is showed?
I ask because if that is possible, someone could promote this own CF via ads, twitter, .....
I ask because if that is possible, someone could promote this own CF via ads, twitter, .....
Each AT has its own "account" so you can simply use that account id for such promotions.
Actually while I am thinking about that - the stupid format used in the alpha-numeric NXT (and BURST) accounts doesn't work at all well with clipboards (i.e. you can't just double click on them or "touch" them to highlight then entire account as it uses "dashes"). I had actually brought this up back when it was first added to Nxt but was ignored (and the separator has nothing to do with the RS algo).
A character other than a dash should really be considered (as Bitcoin addresses are *much better* in this manner - so being "worse than Bitcoin" in usability isn't really a very great thing for a "2.0" platform).
March 09, 2015, 10:54:30 AM
yes, i think that would be great, if we had direkt url links, because this will offer a easy promotion option to the CF Plattform und make other ideas possible. Also burst users could bring others to burst that had before nothing to do with.
March 09, 2015, 10:29:50 AM
has a CF a unique ID or something else, that if there where a web wallet, i could give the specific url to my CF a person and my CF is showed?
I ask because if that is possible, someone could promote this own CF via ads, twitter, .....
I ask because if that is possible, someone could promote this own CF via ads, twitter, .....
Each AT has its own "account" so you can simply use that account id for such promotions.
Actually while I am thinking about that - the stupid format used in the alpha-numeric NXT (and BURST) accounts doesn't work at all well with clipboards (i.e. you can't just double click on them or "touch" them to highlight then entire account as it uses "dashes"). I had actually brought this up back when it was first added to Nxt but was ignored (and the separator has nothing to do with the RS algo).
A character other than a dash should really be considered (as Bitcoin addresses are *much better* in this manner - so being "worse than Bitcoin" in usability isn't really a very great thing for a "2.0" platform).
March 09, 2015, 10:26:48 AM
has a CF a unique ID or something else, that if there where a web wallet, i could give the specific url to my CF a person and my CF is showed?
I ask because if that is possible, someone could promote this own CF via ads, twitter, .....
I ask because if that is possible, someone could promote this own CF via ads, twitter, .....
March 09, 2015, 09:54:24 AM
Although I do not recommend "Ethereum bashing" (and I think the PR team should tone it down) this is probably of some interest:
http://www.reddit.com/r/counterparty_xcp/comments/2y0apx/contract_news/
There is a good reason why we didn't focus on creating a HLL for AT.
http://www.reddit.com/r/counterparty_xcp/comments/2y0apx/contract_news/
There is a good reason why we didn't focus on creating a HLL for AT.
March 09, 2015, 09:53:03 AM
Few things:
For anyone worried about Ethereum... remember that when they initially launch they are not actually going to have a UI. We are miles ahead of them.. though they probably are better known.
But, look at this chart regarding Nxt, in November they had a a bunch of new people join. The reason is because they gave coinmarketcap $2000 to run a banner ad across the top of their page.. and we are much less known than they were when they ran that campaign.
Think we could crowdfund one? Any thoughts regarding what such a banner ad might contain?
Nothing at Stake(NaS) is a theoretical attack typically talked about for Proof of Stake(PoS) systems. The general idea stems from the fact that since PoS mining/staking requires negligible work, users can vote(mine) on as many chains as they want with their full voting/mining power, unlike with PoW where their mining power would have to be split to be used on multiple chains. Some people argue that this property weakens the system as smart miners should mine every chain instead of just the one they think is best, as it costs them nothing to mine on the extras and if the other one happens to win they stand to gain, or that someone wanting to attack a coin could pay miners to multi-vote. Users multi-voting this way would reduce the amount of hashpower required to do a 51% attack. As far as I know this has never caused problems to a coin, but it is an interesting and commonly discussed property. This applies to all PoS coins, and it also applies to Burst.
He is criticizing the fact Burst requires work to be done in it's mining, and NaS applies to it, saying it's taking an undesirable property each from PoW and PoS. He's not wrong and I've previously discussed NaS in this thread, however both of those undesirable properties do apply less then than they do in their normal implementations(the work while mining limits the amount of multi-voting you can do, and the work you do is far less than mining PoW coins). Personally I don't see this as a problem.
Thanks for the clarification. So I guess we can only hope no bad actor attacks BURST...?
It would still require that 51% of the network were bad actors... so not too worried about it. We might still want to implement some extra protection though that just guarantees this isn't happening.. but nothing to worry about and I don't see any rush.
For anyone worried about Ethereum... remember that when they initially launch they are not actually going to have a UI. We are miles ahead of them.. though they probably are better known.
But, look at this chart regarding Nxt, in November they had a a bunch of new people join. The reason is because they gave coinmarketcap $2000 to run a banner ad across the top of their page.. and we are much less known than they were when they ran that campaign.
Think we could crowdfund one? Any thoughts regarding what such a banner ad might contain?
Nothing at Stake(NaS) is a theoretical attack typically talked about for Proof of Stake(PoS) systems. The general idea stems from the fact that since PoS mining/staking requires negligible work, users can vote(mine) on as many chains as they want with their full voting/mining power, unlike with PoW where their mining power would have to be split to be used on multiple chains. Some people argue that this property weakens the system as smart miners should mine every chain instead of just the one they think is best, as it costs them nothing to mine on the extras and if the other one happens to win they stand to gain, or that someone wanting to attack a coin could pay miners to multi-vote. Users multi-voting this way would reduce the amount of hashpower required to do a 51% attack. As far as I know this has never caused problems to a coin, but it is an interesting and commonly discussed property. This applies to all PoS coins, and it also applies to Burst.
He is criticizing the fact Burst requires work to be done in it's mining, and NaS applies to it, saying it's taking an undesirable property each from PoW and PoS. He's not wrong and I've previously discussed NaS in this thread, however both of those undesirable properties do apply less then than they do in their normal implementations(the work while mining limits the amount of multi-voting you can do, and the work you do is far less than mining PoW coins). Personally I don't see this as a problem.
Thanks for the clarification. So I guess we can only hope no bad actor attacks BURST...?
It would still require that 51% of the network were bad actors... so not too worried about it. We might still want to implement some extra protection though that just guarantees this isn't happening.. but nothing to worry about and I don't see any rush.
March 09, 2015, 09:46:47 AM
Anybody knows when petabyte asset will pay dividends 
I am sure they will pay within the next couple of hours, ...
March 09, 2015, 09:45:49 AM
Did anybody get any dividends from that asset ?
I ask the same question about HardInvest, ...
March 09, 2015, 09:44:01 AM
Did anybody get any dividends from that asset ?
March 09, 2015, 09:37:47 AM
Anybody knows when petabyte asset will pay dividends
March 09, 2015, 08:18:17 AM
Update and News: www.burstcoin.de
>> New Feature German Solomining Guide now available.
------
Help me to keep up the page and enhance the information for the german community. 220k to go in the Crowfund. Please do some donations!!!!
>> New Feature German Solomining Guide now available.
------
Help me to keep up the page and enhance the information for the german community. 220k to go in the Crowfund. Please do some donations!!!!
March 09, 2015, 05:23:56 AM
ATDevelopmentFund AT was executed. What was the total fee consumed by the AT from its start? How many blocks it was spread through?
First of all, I would like to thank everyone for the support in funding the ATDevelopmentFund.
The total fees consumed for the AT from its start is 4.3bursts. They were distributed amongst 2 blocks. The first 1.1 fees consumed when the AT had run for first time. When the CF AT runs for first time it goes for "sleep" until the block height which is going to decide if the project is funded or not. The rest 3.2 fees consumed when the AT "woke up" ( block height 74905) and was time to decide.
March 09, 2015, 05:22:04 AM
Thanks for the clarification. So I guess we can only hope no bad actor attacks BURST...?
That is all you can hope for in any system, the only difference is how hard it is to mount an attack. Burst is not unprotected, so to speak, all these points were discussed in this thread and elsewhere on this forum.
From my 15 minute musings (hi Vitalik), I believe that NaaS is more of a theoretical toy, than a real attack vector for Burst. However, speaking for crypto in general, this is not something that should be approached solely from the "software" side of things and in 15 minute increments. It has to do as much with game theory (cooperation/competition) as with software development. Perhaps I should spend some more time thinking of miners as entities with "fitness" and looking at it through an evolutionary perspective, hmmm...
March 09, 2015, 04:40:03 AM
ATDevelopmentFund AT was executed. What was the total fee consumed by the AT from its start? How many blocks it was spread through?
March 09, 2015, 04:33:59 AM
A friend of mine mentioned that Vitalik Buterin of Ethereum said that POC has a flaw and that someone can attack the network and cause a double spend. He said it was posted on Reddit. But I can't find it anywhere. Is this true? If so can someone post the link? ty
I read what he posted on https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/cryptocurrency-burst-makes-smart-contracts-reality-happened-ethereum/ and normally I would say FUD but you have to look at who it is and think not but then again the article pokes butthurt at his invention so....
It would be nice for the BURST Dev to comment on this for the record.
Quote
Vitalik Buterin zash • a month ago
I'll copy my post from Reddit:
> Okay, I thought about POC for 15 minutes, and...
>
> wow, congrats, these guys have managed to create an algorithm which
simultaneously has a nothing at stake vulnerability AND is economically
inefficient.
> The problem is this. It seems as though the intent of the algorithm
is for the bulk of the cost to be storing the hard drive, and for the
hard drive to be able to "idle" after it scanned through the entire
plot. However, this means that once the plots are built, there is very
little cost to redoing the scan multiple times on multiple forks. Hence,
if an attacker could either (i) convince miners that its fork had a
>0.1%* chance of succeeding or (ii) bribe miners 0.001x the block
reward, miners all have the incentive to double-vote.
> * In order for the algo to be storage-bound and for a shortcut attack
involving recomputing everything not to exist, we need reading from the
hard drive to take less time than recomputing the data. But then we
want a 1000x safety margin if we want that condition to hold true
against potential ASIC implementations, hence reads need to be 1000x
cheaper than the plot computation step. Hence, reading more than one
time would have a marginal incremental cost of only 0.1%.
Things are this are why we didn't launch in Jan 2014
I'll copy my post from Reddit:
> Okay, I thought about POC for 15 minutes, and...
>
> wow, congrats, these guys have managed to create an algorithm which
simultaneously has a nothing at stake vulnerability AND is economically
inefficient.
> The problem is this. It seems as though the intent of the algorithm
is for the bulk of the cost to be storing the hard drive, and for the
hard drive to be able to "idle" after it scanned through the entire
plot. However, this means that once the plots are built, there is very
little cost to redoing the scan multiple times on multiple forks. Hence,
if an attacker could either (i) convince miners that its fork had a
>0.1%* chance of succeeding or (ii) bribe miners 0.001x the block
reward, miners all have the incentive to double-vote.
> * In order for the algo to be storage-bound and for a shortcut attack
involving recomputing everything not to exist, we need reading from the
hard drive to take less time than recomputing the data. But then we
want a 1000x safety margin if we want that condition to hold true
against potential ASIC implementations, hence reads need to be 1000x
cheaper than the plot computation step. Hence, reading more than one
time would have a marginal incremental cost of only 0.1%.
Things are this are why we didn't launch in Jan 2014
Same here. I think it would be nice to hear from the BURST dev.
Nothing at Stake(NaS) is a theoretical attack typically talked about for Proof of Stake(PoS) systems. The general idea stems from the fact that since PoS mining/staking requires negligible work, users can vote(mine) on as many chains as they want with their full voting/mining power, unlike with PoW where their mining power would have to be split to be used on multiple chains. Some people argue that this property weakens the system as smart miners should mine every chain instead of just the one they think is best, as it costs them nothing to mine on the extras and if the other one happens to win they stand to gain, or that someone wanting to attack a coin could pay miners to multi-vote. Users multi-voting this way would reduce the amount of hashpower required to do a 51% attack. As far as I know this has never caused problems to a coin, but it is an interesting and commonly discussed property. This applies to all PoS coins, and it also applies to Burst.
He is criticizing the fact Burst requires work to be done in it's mining, and NaS applies to it, saying it's taking an undesirable property each from PoW and PoS. He's not wrong and I've previously discussed NaS in this thread, however both of those undesirable properties do apply less then than they do in their normal implementations(the work while mining limits the amount of multi-voting you can do, and the work you do is far less than mining PoW coins). Personally I don't see this as a problem.
Thanks for the clarification. So I guess we can only hope no bad actor attacks BURST...?
March 09, 2015, 04:02:39 AM
@smaxer
can you change (50 block average) to (360 block average) at http://burstcoin.eu/calculator ?
360 blocks = 1 day
Hi Blago,
i will add this later. Thanks for your suggestion.
March 09, 2015, 02:03:17 AM
Thanks for the statement!
Jump to: