Topic: [ANN][BURST] Burst | Efficient HDD Mining | New 1.2.3 Fork block 92000 - page 530. (Read 2171056 times)

Both maidsafe and storj are very aggresively marketing with very little to show for it. Not saying its outright scam (storj at least outlined the backbones how it could work in language which mostly makes sense. Still, their story has a lot of practical plot holes in it.). It's just a lot of snake oil dream selling for my taste (things like buy 10k of our asset ... and you MIGHT download our opensource software, which is of course totally free and open).

Yes I did read it. The first part of my post was referring to the situation of having a peer that is storing the data, but won't transfer it if the owner of the data wants to download it. Under this situation they will pass the heartbeat checks regardless of which method is used to perform them, since the farmers are storing the data. One could argue that "We instead designate the client as the ultimate decision maker in the network." is sufficient as a user has the authority to ditch a farmer and designate a new one if they are not behaving to their satisfaction, however especially in the case of long-term storage, the user might not know that there will be a problem with a peer when they want to download their data, and may assume that their data is still accessible because the farmers are passing the heartbeat checks, even when the data may no longer be retrievable to them.

Your section on GVNs sending payments I originally thought was just about heartbeat payments. If it is also being used for transfer payments, I may be mistaken about that being an issue.

i had'nt to read any further than page one last paragraph.
decentralized cloud storage is what sounds great but includes several flaws of the main idea in terms of service costs.
like point 4 states you can choose the redundancy when putting a file onto the cloud (this i also suggested in the burst storage discussion).
working with 4 copies as default is far too less to protect your files  against loss.
adding 500 copies, which is stated to be armageddon resistant, drives the costs higher than professional hosting costs.  

for average miner (farmer) you can assume a max upload speed of 80-100 kb/s.
so if you want to distribute huge amounts of data through storj like iso images of linux distributions and buy 500 copies you can rely on 5 gigabit simultanous download speed at least (some farmer may be faster than average).

cheating the network may not be useful in terms of storage capacity.
furthermore bandwidth is the key to cheat by preventing data transfers.
you may setup a cluster of virtual hosts with 50 gb capacity each. they are behind a custom made firewall not allowing traffic to the same outside peers.
in addition only audits, heartbeats and blockchain access is allowed at full bandwidth. the blockchain may be accessed through one or more headnodes.
depending on the integration of the p2p protocols it may be even possible to fill up the 50gb virtual hosts through only one headnode and get listed their storage in the blockchains metadata.

 

Isn't Maidsafe already doing this?  I understood that they already had something working, right?

Everyone is arguing about the botnet.. have you noticed how bullish the order books have been looking though?  Particularly on Poloniex.

Solid floors of people buying with only a trickle of people selling.. of course the 1% inflation per day plays a part but even in spite of that we're saying pretty steady.. and in fact steadily increasing in price.  A couple weeks ago you could buy under 110, last week 120, now it seems you can barely buy under 130 satoshis.

My point though is that if buyers are this bullish, I'm sure miners also are bullish and stocking up.  I suspect we're seeing real growth, not a botnet.  Wish the burstcoin.eu statistics were more accurate, would require them having a larger percentage of the mining power though I guess.. so the higher it gets, the more unreliable the statistics will get   Maybe others can chip in data to burstcoin.eu?   Have a few of the big miners tell them how much hard drive space they are contributing to the network to improve that statistic?

And how much advertising and marketing effort have we really been making?  Personally, I have been reaching out to people, specifically Nxt developers and litecoin developers, trying to get them on board while the price is low.  I would highly recommend others do the same.  I've gotten a little bit of interest, nobody who was extremely excited but some interest and I imagine investment.

Give this coin 2 to 4 months.. and I expect that we'll see a bubble and that 0.5 cents is not unreasonable, probably even low.  Consider that this is a coin (as well as a 'token'), yet Nxt has been marketing itself as solely a token.. which automatically makes it less valuable.  This coin could easily be a top 5 coin if a couple key things go right.  Personally, for me that means re-working the plotting and mining, which is a hassle but some key things could be done to improve ASIC resistance long term as well as improving the verification of blocks (by about a factor of 600 million), which allows reduced block times.. down to about a minute.  Have bounced these ideas around with burstcoin.

We also need some people to hoard this coin, and then later when the price increases invest it back into development and marketing of the coin.  I'm doing my part there.  This coin will only be successful if we have some big holders who intend to put their money back into growing the coin. If the coin is too well distributed, then no one has enough vested interest and money to later spend on growing their investment.

Did you read the whitepaper? I covered how to do this in Section 10.

This paper doesn't really address what I consider to be the most difficult problems in such a system. Any time the topic of data storage and bandwith comes up in this thread it becomes very apparent that for some users the bandwith used is much more of a concern than storing large amounts of data. Because of this, I suspect any system like storj will have users who are willing to honestly store and provide verifications for the data they are storing, but will be unwilling to transfer this data when requested, as the bandwith used is more valuable to them than than transfer fee. The other problem would be efficiently handling the transfer payments. As retrieving a file may require retrieving many shards which may need to be transferred from multiple users each, handling payment by traditional means could result in a massive amount of transactions.

Clearly we are in front of big code challenges. But I believe the torrent scene will very likely adopt a client that has a possibility to monetize the value created by the network.

Hahahha, I'm going to adopt technobabble term!

Caught me red handed. I'm assuming nothing has changed since the draft, ie bunch of supernodes (GVN) underwriting contracts. Basically the same what maid purports will do, their technobabble is even worse, though.

Says the person who read 18 pages in 15 minutes and fully understood everything he read

It does not elaborate on how exactly is audit consensus executed (most notably, whom audits who - and when).
From technical perspective, storj is plagued by same problems as, for example, ethereum. Someone raises some
attack vector (stemming from lack of robustness), vitalik roughly explains how to bandage it. And it goes on and on.


Wait, I need to pump storj asset on XCP to download "opensource" software now?
O...kay.

I have to admit this pump is ingenious

i haven't found a block in 3 days with 50TB.  3 days ago I found 3 blocks.  prior to that, it was 4 days without a block.  it's really strange lately.

The Storj Whitepaper was released officially today at www.storj.io/storj.pdf
They also have the access plans posted at www.storj.io/earlyaccess

Compared to maid and storj (which are just pumped IPOs at this moment, non-mineable and with no utility), BURST makes no promises this will be at all possible. Proof of Being Reliable Storage And Not Just Someone Faking It is very, very difficult to do in reliable fashion. So far, all proposals to do this in decentralized fashion are technobabble than anything sound.

I mean if somehow we could do a proof of sharing, based either on bandwidth or disk space ...

It sure took longer than i had expected for the basetarget to come down, difficulty to come up. Mining burst was and is a steal, compared to anything else you can do with comodity hardware. Especially if your electicity is expensive.

I finally got my systems running relatively smoothly and unattended and the last week or so i've gotten 1-3 blocks a day, where i previously had 4-7 or so, basetarget is falling (difficulty is rising, network size is rising) fast and now seems to be wobbeling around 2 million, where it was wobbeling around 3.5 million before.  Anyway, all the new plotters and miners are very welcome, and as there are only so many burst coming out no matter how many miners, more miners do not mean more burst, so the price is rock stable no matter how much harddisk space we throw at the protocol.

This also means that the less effective miners will likely start buying burst on the exchanges instead of mining burst, as that might be more profitable for them. This will create buying pressure and establish a floor on the price, perhaps even make it go up.

Marketing department should start making lists of stuff you can do with burst IRL, and detail what kinds of software and instructions is needed.  everyone selling something for bitcoin should have an easy way to sell for burst too. i mean.. really easy.. as a retailer it should be just an app you install on your tablet, then you are ready for action, you should never have to see a commandline window or the like.

I really hope that i can find some time next year to add a little code and apps to the coin, currently my empolyer who was wise enough to give me ownership is taking up all my time and then some.

I think it is time to discuss usecase scenarios involving burst and what instructions, programs and services are needed to make things happen. My advise to all : Don't buy a pizza for 1K burst... In time, it wil turn out to have been a very expensive pizza ;-)

I think that for this it will take months.
but I'm sure it will be something similar to the success of bitcoin.
blocks reward are already down to 8573 burst.
and then decreasing the reward and increasing of the difficulty will increase burst value

and if important features will be introduced by the dev we go to the moon!!!

Look what the storJ price story ...

 

It is still one of the more active topics I follow. Also I am still mining with my small plots, no matter the difficulty, not in it only for the $.

Though if Burst gets established enough, I have no doubts we'll be seeing the "bitcoin scenario".

Nope, the mystery miner is pretty real (chances of it being a coincidence and a lot of people being very lucky are fairly astronomical at this point). Their wallets were identified several pages ago. It appears to be at least 35% hashpower, (diff increased from 6PB to 10PB).


Not dev, but hope my half-assed lecture on basic statistics will be enough:



Roll a fair dice, you can get number between 1 to 6. How many times you need to throw a dice to get 3.5 on average with <1% error? At least 400 times. Same goes for burst difficulty - burst averages last 23 averages and current roll, a so called moving average which skews towards present (ie past is less significant). Both small sample size and moving average are to blame here. Note that such "gravity well" algorithms in various alts are equally "flawed" (to the point of being fairly dangerous - when the near-past average skews too much, it enables timewarp attacks, though that's mostly faulty implementations to blame).

This is why bitcoin uses 14 day sample size with no smooth readjusting of difficulty, and the +-2 times cap - to cap oscillations arising from overshoots in adjustment because of imperfect sample size. It has also no regards for past history (randomness has no memory, its just fluff).

TL:DR: It's a slightly wrong implementation based on wrong assumptions, however no showstopper. I'd recommend hard fork to fix this only in case theres proof it's indeed exploitable condition, and not just an oddity. The jumps in burst will be always at least roughly +-30% because thats the best you can get with 24 samples. When network is 10PB, it jumps between 13 and 7. when network was 6PB, it jumped between 4 and 8 and so on.

difficulty goes high... small miner, who write here, lode interest...
and go away!!!

 

in the last days the thread had less post...