Topic: [ANN][BURST] Burst | Efficient HDD Mining | New 1.2.3 Fork block 92000 - page 648. (Read 2171081 times)

You're wondering loudly. lol.

I honestly don't know since I haven't run anything but 7200 RPMs, but I don't believe there should be that much of a difference. Maybe someone with a little more knowledge on the underside of how burst actulally mines could tell you.

But I would say it's definitely fine to mine on them, and it won't be that much of a difference.

I agree about the storage part,  I don't think burst needs to worry about becoming decentralized storage, the issue you mentioned as well as bandwidth come into play, also, not sure how they would work it with so many people having different connections and speeds. but yea... BURST doesn't need to be storage, it's the mining that's the innovation here.

it COULD however, be a decentralized marketplace, with escrow. That could already happen, and would be a great plan. IMO

I am wondering if mining on a 5400 rpm HDD has the same performance as a 7200 rpm hdd.If their capacity is the same.

Make sure your HDDs aren't parking often, this will kill them fast. If they do, add something like this to 'crontab -e':


Also, ensure plot files aren't fragmented and large enough stagger is used so they're read sequentially. This way tear should be minimal.

For SSDs the above doesn't matter much, reading during mining shouldn't put much stress on them.

p.s. Regarding storj: most ppl I talked to don't like the idea of storing files on their hdds (even encrypted ones). They're afraid of illegal content potentially being stored. Burst doesn't store any real data and many view this as an advantage.

SSD makes no sense in this kind of mining. I wouldn't put a plot on it because basically you have few space, and bandwidth doesn't matter that much on those sizes.
As far as I can tell (mining since 17 days) all my HDD are running fine, I have 4 on my gaming laptop, 2 internal (SSD and personal data) and 2 external (mining). No performance losses, even when gaming except for the CPU going to full load when a new block is found, but it lasts few seconds and if you don't reserve all the cores for mining you won't lose more than 2 or 3 fps for those seconds.

Since this has been around for a while, I think it's important to ask... Is there any wear and tear done by this kind of mining, any loss of performance? Specially on SSD's...

Rather than trying ensure a certain number of copies, an alternate approach is to make it most profitable to host data pieces that have the fewest other mirrors. Here's what I'm thinking: Use payments for storage as a 'storage reward'. The storage reward for a file will come around seemingly randomly but selected deterministically by running network state(gensig, etc) through a hashing-based algorithm that also takes a probability of a block having a storage reward for that file. When the storage reward time for a file comes up, there will also be a deterministically selected portion of the file. Miners who have the file stored can calculate a proof-of-knowledge of that piece of the file based off a merkle tree root that was stored in the blockchain when the file was stored, and announce an intent to collect the reward containing a hash of something along the lines of sha256(userId concat sha256(knowledge proof)) so that the knowledge proof is not yet revealed. After a set amount of time, any node can announce the proof-of-knowlege. A selection method is then used to select one of the miners to receive the storage reward. Using this method one shouldn't have to attempt to ensure a certain number of copies, as the most effective method of mining is browse the dht seeking out files that have the fewest number of copies available, and host copies of them, since they offer the best chance of receiving a storage reward, as they will have the fewest amount of people competing for the reward.

Uray, you truly are a comitted dev. Thank you for your work and keep it up! 

yes its great, can't wait to test it

This looks amazing. Keep up the good work

the hardest thing to design that is that you have to rely that there are some data copies available whenever you want to access them.
the best would be to be able to book a certain amount of bandwidth plus a guaranteed period of time plus a specified number of copies whenever you put a storage object into the network. compared to dropbox this can be realized by folder attributes.
this concept is a service and no mining except if you add a asset which can only be earned if you put a specific nonce into the storage objects. maybe if you "host" 256mb encrypted data you get allowed to add one nonce for it. these nonces have to have another weight than simple mining nonces. each time you host the file as long as 10% of the booked time you are allowed to add another nonce or the weight of yours get adjusted (similar to the timekoin generator reward). if the period of booked time for the data package has exceeded it can either get renewed and if not the accounts hosted the data can keep their nonces for that package in reverse order (10 month hosted, 20 month additional reward).
technically it is like a huge private torrent network backed by the blockchain (as tracker) and miners.
for me it makes most sense at the moment to add filesharing like an asset.
if you want to store files you require burst to buy this asset. if you only want to host data you receive this asset and can trade it for burst.
this concept utilizes the mining infastructure people have (except the bandwidth usage) to store files but also requires people to pay similar like if the miners use their infastructure for pure mining.
if i say 1 gb local storage may mine 18 burst within a month and i want to have 500 copies of my data i would have to pay 9000 burst for 1 gb cloud storage at the current diff. if you reduce the number of copies to 50 1gb would cost 50 dollarcent at current prices.
if the price stays stable at the current level this calculation would be fine. if the price settles at 2000 satoshi or more anytime soon its a way too expensive to use.
one of the most tricky designs is to make it for the miners similar provitable to host files as to mine. tricky are the redundant copies you require. nobody finally really cares to not loose data blocks on system failures. to prevent and recover this i can think of a infastructure which maintains itself. lets say you have defined periods of time to resync your hosted files or someone else gets them assigned and payed for. also the bandwidth usage is huge. this means if someone mines today with 4 tb he could only upload on average 4gb a day and blocks his line completely. if you factor this in you come to a ratio of how many files can be stored. with todays 4500 miners 18 tb cloudstorage could be realized. if you say you keep 100 copies of the files you end up at about 200gb which every miner stores.
if you try to keep everything in correlation with the block rewards and market prices its hard to predict what will happen to such a service.
i think over time the redundant copies make it much more expensive to use than if you host your data on a dedicated  server.
i currently dont know how price structures for data hosting look like but backblaze offers a complete backup for exactly 5 dollar a month.
if i sum everything up this is what a dropbox like burst extension requires:
-you define the number of copies you want to have
-you define the guaranteed bandwidth you can access your files with
-you define how long the files shall be stored
-after the defined time the storage service renews itself based on current market prices for the same time if your balance allows it
-you define who can access it
-miners have to have similar profits wether they store files or use their diskspace for mining (correlation between block reward and diff)
-the network reassigns lost storage slots to other people if a wallet could not be accessed for a certain period of time
-storage may not cost more than regular cloud storage (depends on the number of copies)

NO, the average user does not have enough bandwidth to cope with that. Also, file storage requires that there is a DEMAND, which isn't infinite. Leave burst as it is, and storj as it is....honestly I don't think storj will do what it wants to do....but it just might....

lol everyone picks on the poor dev. He's one of the hardest working devs I've seen

Please the file storage will not kill the burst , don't worry !
I've only told you  that there is a simple service , a decentralized storage ( called storj) . If burst will come like storj (  without lose the PoC algorithm)  I think  will attract more users and users  .

Please people, the file storage thing is purely BAD NEWS. All it'll do is make big data centers more money. Right now data centers don't have gpu's to plot, or on their servers with lots of hdd's good cpu's. This prevents them from wrecking burst. Now most people at home have a few TB's and a GPU or at least a good CPU.

Please, the file storage thing will KILL burst. Leave that to storj, and if its that critical to you, well just leave and buy lots of storj.

Well put!  You basically paraphrased what I've been thinking all along

Proof-of-dev is only necessary when the coin doesn't stand on its own technical merits. Burst stands on its own technical merits, so I don't think PoD is critical. I've looked through the source code, and I saw no signs of pre-mine or any other hidden functionality, and I'd invite others to do the same - especially anyone that is a java expert and is familiar with the NXT codebase (which I am neither).

Burst's proof-of-capacity mining offers a significant technical advantage over bitcoin's proof-of-work mining. This is Burst's major advantage - any other features are just icing on the cake.

Bitcoin has a weakness in the long term. Bitcoin will eventually require 50% of the entire economy's energy production to be spent toward verifying the blockchain. Bitcoin incentivizes major research efforts into creating the most efficient SHA256 chip - something that has little benefit outside of bitcoin.

Burstcoin provides a good solution to these weaknesses. Burstcoin's endgame will require 50% of the economy's hard drive capacity, which will require much less energy. Burstcoin also incentivizes research efforts into better hard drives, which is a nice positive externality.

So, I'm mining and investing in Burstcoin, because it has massive long-term potential. I plan on holding my stash of Burst for years to see how it plays out against bitcoin in the long-run.

@Uray
When do you planning reliese the "All in one" app. It looks realy suitable..

what i hope the difference between burst data storage and storj.io is we are using pay by data usage instead of storj's pay for disk space, so storing small files would be relatively very cheap, this way the burst node network can evolve into CDN serving nodes other than file storage

i am integrating java miner & plotter into wallet, and convert it to desktop app