Topic: [ANN][BURST] Burst | Efficient HDD Mining | New 1.2.3 Fork block 92000 - page 424. (Read 2170648 times)

Yeah, I got that it saves on memory usage. It also appears that maybe I wasn't part of the 'you need to optimize generation' because you have a super low stagger. I didn't start mining burst with lower then a 8192 stagger. I may try higher staggers and see where that goes, but right now it seems like the most limiting factor is my CPU. I've never gotten anywhere close to my drives max sequential read speeds or even random read speeds so far. The GPU plotter is actually a good indicator of how fast your drives can randomly read (since writes are pretty close to the same thing). Plotting for me had about 4x as much throughput.


Also I agree, after moving to alt coins I basically have not touched Cryptsy in a really long time and I don't really miss it honestly.

BURST's uptrend from early November continues





If you would like to want to get easy access to news and updates, bit and small, please follow our Twitter at

Also, to make sure you are informed of the big BURST news, our semi-brand-new email Newsletter at [url]http://burstcoin.info/ is an excellent choice

It's up to everyone to do the PR/voing to get listed elsewhere - see OP.

More exchange = More choice

Different people have different circumstances which leads them to choose different exchange (which explain why all those exchange survive till now even though they are not as good as other). By having more exchange , we allow more choice which in turn allow wide variety of investor. Existing investor will most probably not change to trade at new exchange but new exchange will definitely bring in new investor. Even 1 new investor is good. We never know that 1 new investor could be a giant whale who only trade on cryptsy / bter due to whatever reason. We should take every chance we got to improve burst exposure.

Since I have started with BURST I have not gone back to Cryptsy,  even if BURST was listed there, why choose Cryptsy over Poloniex?  Poloniex's interface and deposits are so much smoother. But ya, more exchanges are always good.

And on a side note, what other alt coin offers home mining with standard consumer hardware that doesn't pollute your home with noise and heat.  If a home miner wanted to expand into a semi-large or large scale mining operation he/she could easily do so with items purchased from major retailers and endure not much more than the calming click of hard-drive seek every ~4min.  Why choose a GPU or ASIC coin to mine from home when you can choose BURST.  I'm sure a few data centers may get involved in this coin but what different is that when compared to the large mining farms BTC has.  When the BURST mining software evolves enough to make the setup process smoother, a large community adoption can easily offset any threat data-centers may pose to the BURST network.

Litecoin was once the working-class coin, Silver to BTC Gold, the ASIC industry killed that.  I don't see why BURST will not be in a position to dethrone LTC from that position in 1-2 years and with all of the growth and benefits offered by crypto 2.0 who knows how far this technology will go once it has matured.  This coin is only ~6months old,  I wonder what things will be like this time next year.  No longer will you be tied to the predatory practices of pre-orders or relying on one or two companies to improve mining technology.  As storage technologies naturally improve so will the BURST network.

This is why I have chosen BURST as my mining hobby. And if it all collapses, at least I have some nice storage drives for my home movie collection


GO BURST!!

I have a question (perhaps for the PR team?). Why burst still not listed in more major exchange like bter and crypsty ? Trade volume have increase over the months. Many scam coins got added to bter and crypsty i wonder why legit coin like burst don't get listed after so many months. Maybe we should set a target to get listed on those exchange and more exchange after that to increase exposure. Remember bitcoin started off with only 1 major exchange (mt gox) and slowly grow with more exchange. If bitcoin were to remain with only 1 exchange (mt gox) it will be in the history book. We need more exchange for burst, especially the bigger one.

Because it has done what others say they will do but have been unable to do with Market caps much larger.
Of course I am referring to Automated Transactions and Smart Contracts.

This coin is so undervalued its scary.

Was not trying to be original there, I think it is a legitimate option to hand your stuff away if you're through with something.

While I am familiar with many criticisms of smart contracts, they indeed could pose a major development going long term.

Basically, you could trustlessly do many of the things that require intermediaries and their fees. Such as lawyers for example.

You can start off your reading here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_contract

I'm up no the news still don't see what this offers long term.  Yeah yeah send me your coins, good one, never heard it before. 

I guess you missed the news. Burst is the first and, currently, the only coin to offer Automated Transactions aka Smart Contracts.

Something we are waiting for 15mil ICO Ethereum project to deliver you can have now by using Burst. All that powered by burstdev, ciyam and vbcs, not ICO $.

If this is not convincing enough for you, feel free to send me your millions. I'll gladly take them

EDIT: Cloud storage is planned for the future, though it will take some time to work it out.
If still willing, send Burst here BURST-K84W-LWVZ-B727-67WUL

lol no you certainly don't have to download again.  It would be absurd to think we have AT, but no way to preserve blockchain throughout updates.  Take the "burst_db" folder from the old version folder, and cut/paste it into the update that you've downloaded.  And that's it.  You can run your wallet using the new run.bat, and will only need to download the few blocks that you're behind on.

Edit: from the op: "After running wallet, access it through a web browser at http://localhost:8125 When upgrading wallet, move burst_db folder into new wallet folder to avoid re-downloading the blockchain. For detailed instructions, see Guides below."

How is this an investment, what does the coin do?  It would be great if there was online harddrive space you could use with more coins that you buy or mine.  

What are people going to use this coin for that the other 700 altcoins or BTC or LTC don't offer?

I'm holding a few million BURST and I'm wondering where it's all going.

You can copy the old "burst_db" folder to the new wallet folder - same location.
Then start the new wallet.  And coinits is right

@bensam123

The optimizer is not only for speeding up the reading process, also to optimize how the hdd reading method. Low stagger equals more seeks.
I have some plots with really low stagger like 1000 and the fastest read is about 10MB/s. With stagger between 8000 to 12000 I have usb 3.0 speed of 120 MB/s. I optimized one plot and it eats more ram that unoptimized with the old java miner.

No you do not and if that is all that it takes to make you say goodbye then good riddance.

I should say good-buy. This coin is very promising and a really good investment...

With the update do you have to download the entire blockchain again?  If so, I'm not doing it, I'm saying goodbye to this coin, sorry.

So after playing around and comparing Optimized Vs Non-optimized plots with the J6 optimizer, it appears as though non-optimized plots are faster. They however consume more memory when being mined (optimized plots have almost no memory usage). The speed difference is negligible, optimized is 10~ seconds slower, seemingly regardless of the number of drives I have attached.

I'm not exactly certain why this is, especially when everyone is saying they're faster. I even used a faster processor and Blagos miner was not operating at 100% usage. To that end, it appears that Blagos can only split threads down so much and it was effectively limited by one logical processor... at which point it would be faster if I had a higher frequency processor (single threaded performance becomes a bottleneck).

These are 4.54TB plots on 5TB 5,900RPM drives with 8192 stagger. They're hooked up via SATA 3 and I'm running W8.1 x64. The fastest I could hash one 5TB drive was 47s, it was non-optimized. A optimized one took 51s.

I really don't know why you'd want to optimize, unless you have extremely slow drives or almost no memory. Even on my pokey 5,900RPM drives, the bottleneck is definitely the processor (which makes a GPU assisted miner all the more desirable). The amount of time it takes to optimize and risk breaking your plots doesn't seem worth it.

Although I haven't played around with it, I would theorize a higher stagger size would actually make mining faster (if you have 16, 32, or 64GB of memory). These results may be because of how large my plots are comparatively to other people who are using much smaller drives.

I've been testing this over the last week or so and this has been tested across multiple systems. A A4-4000, G3220, and a AMD x4 640 (which is what I'm currently using). I tested in single drive configurations and multiple drive configurations (up to five drives). The results have been retested too, at no point in time were the drives actually the bottleneck in any of my tests. Maybe I just don't have a fast enough processor and after a certain threshold a non-optimized drive becomes worse then a optimized one.

In order to surpass a certain threshold it seems as though you need an extremely fast single threaded processor for best case mining. A i7, overclocked is better. Hyperthreading will help when you have more then four drives, although I also suspect a eight core FX would perform well when you have more then eight drives as AMD modules work quite well in multithreaded workloads.

Thanks for the info fella. Just got one more question I have  the defrag program what one is recommended to use on it out the options as I just done a 5 hour defrag and its still 58% fragmented lol

i'am using dcct miner with DevPool v2 since ~ one month. it is stable and no memory problems (10TB & 3GB RAM).

the changes:
1. line 393:
-> old code "used += sprintf(&f1[used], "%llu:%llu\n", sharekey, sharenonce);"
-> new code "used += sprintf(&f1[used], "%llu:%llu:%llu\n", sharekey, sharenonce, height);"

2. line 400:
-> old code "int db = sprintf(f2, "POST /pool/submitWork HTTP/1.0\r\nHost: %s:%i\r\nContent-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8\r\nContent-Length: %i\r\n\r\n{\"%s\", %u}", nodeip, nodeport, used + 6 + ilen , f1, used);"
-> new code "int db = sprintf(f2, "POST /pool/submitWork HTTP/1.0\r\nHost: %s:%i\r\nContent-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8\r\nContent-Length: %i\r\n\r\n%s", nodeip, nodeport, used, f1);"

the submission of shares was not the correct format.