A different question: Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW: "Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982957.0For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation... But maybe we could get an idea. Thank you. You still need a computer and hard drive running to power Proof of Stake... but let's say that you do add 4096 drives to that computer, you could split your plots up across thousands of hard drives, and the only turn on two hard drives at a time per block. With POC2.. you'll only need to turn on 1 hard drives, one that stores signatures, one that stores the current scoop being read. And you turn two on for two seconds per 4 minute block(granted, I expect we'll lower block times sooner or later.). So a hard drive would normally consume 10 Watts but we can say it only consumes 2/4*60th of this since it's only on for 2 seconds per 4 minutes. So this means that it basically consumes 0.83 % of the amount of energy as one hard drive. Or 0.0167 Watts extra for two drives. Let's assume there is other over head or you are keeping them on longer or something.. and let's say that all these drives use 1 W to run. Ahahah 1 hdd of 4096... And reading speed will beeee....ZERO?  Anyway hdd in sleep mode taking much amount of power, plus time to wake up is about 10 sec. I figured you could totally turn it off right? Though you are probably right about wake up time... let me multiply by 10. Keep in mind Google did a study that shows that it does not significantly increase the wear and tear of a drive to turn it off and on regularly. An let's face it you are only turning it on and off a few times a day, even if you reduce the number of drives plugged in to 100 or so drives. You can't totally disable drive while it's power plugged(you need to disconnect drive physically from power for that, turn off +12V), so drive will be in sleep mode consuming power. If you gonna have only 1 drive of 4096 to read, it's reading speed will be about 180mb/s, so it would take about 6-12 HOURS to read full 4tb drive) Good point about read speed.. Let me re-write that assuming less drives tonight. However, keep in mind that w that POC2 could use significantly smaller sections of the drive.. Which would at least help this issue. But yeah that's definitely an issue with my calculation. Regarding turning off hard drives, remember I'm assuming a device made specifically for this purpose. Of course I'm not factoring in any energy usage for this device.. Maybe I should add 10 W. Thanks for feedback!! My theory is, that some people out there, with a rather large farm, use a custom miner that will assume that the deadline will win and scan for the next block. This allows them to announce low deadline immediately after their previous deadline was accepted.
i like your theory  so... can they make some sort of blocktime attack?) (cause we don't need to find block immediatelly(like standard PoW), so can they do it in a row? we need new miner, which can premine next block  It could but since it would be building off of it's own old block, the new deadline wouldn't start ticking down the seconds until the old deadline came about. In fact, I wonder if it would make sense for miners to announce to the rest of the network that they have found that next deadline in advance before just sending out the block to maximize the time the network has to future blocks. If this miner then decided not to author the block then the network has to choose another miner. This is sort of similar to the idea of the Nothing at stake issue... need to think more but in fact that preannouncing if done right might help prevent that from even theoretically becoming an issue. |
|
|
|
A different question: Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW: "Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982957.0For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation... But maybe we could get an idea. Thank you. You still need a computer and hard drive running to power Proof of Stake... but let's say that you do add 4096 drives to that computer, you could split your plots up across thousands of hard drives, and the only turn on two hard drives at a time per block. With POC2.. you'll only need to turn on 1 hard drives, one that stores signatures, one that stores the current scoop being read. And you turn two on for two seconds per 4 minute block(granted, I expect we'll lower block times sooner or later.). So a hard drive would normally consume 10 Watts but we can say it only consumes 2/4*60th of this since it's only on for 2 seconds per 4 minutes. So this means that it basically consumes 0.83 % of the amount of energy as one hard drive. Or 0.0167 Watts extra for two drives. Let's assume there is other over head or you are keeping them on longer or something.. and let's say that all these drives use 1 W to run. Ahahah 1 hdd of 4096... And reading speed will beeee....ZERO? Anyway hdd in sleep mode taking much amount of power, plus time to wake up is about 10 sec. I figured you could totally turn it off right? Though you are probably right about wake up time... let me multiply by 10. Keep in mind Google did a study that shows that it does not significantly increase the wear and tear of a drive to turn it off and on regularly. An let's face it you are only turning it on and off a few times a day, even if you reduce the number of drives plugged in to 100 or so drives. |
|
|
|
A different question: Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW: "Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982957.0For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation... But maybe we could get an idea. Thank you. You still need a computer and hard drive running to power Proof of Stake... but let's say that you do add 50 3TB drives to that computer, you could split your plots up across all of these of hard drives, and the only turn on two hard drives at a time per block. With POC2.. you'll only need to turn on 1 hard drives, one that stores signatures, one that stores the current scoop being read. Otherwise, it'd consume 50 * 10 Watts per hard drive. So this equals 500 Watts = 0.5 kW 1 kW*hr costs 12 cents. Meaning 0.5 kWhr costs 0.5 * $0.12 = $0.06/hr $0.06/hr * 24 hr/day * 365 days/yr = $500 of electricity per year In my mind, eventually a device that starts switching drives off and on in my mind could be POC's version of an ASIC. This could bring the power usage down to about 12W total since you'd still have 1 hard drive running continually, plus the device would use some tiny amount of power. Point being, there is definitely financial incentive to create such a device, which would definitely sell to POC mining farms, and once this type of device for connecting these hard drives to the network is being made, I suspect it'll pretty widely used for plugging in a variable number of drives. Back to how much energy POC uses vs POS, and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts, POC uses 500 extra Watts that means that POC uses 800 Watts. 800 W / 300W = approx 2.7 as much energy as POS. So it's reasonable. In other words POC2 uses 270% more energy than Proof of Stake.Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of WorkAssume you go with the above assumption that you connect 50 hard drives to the computer, and each hard drive costs $100 each. That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W. Now let's pick a random Bitcoin miner. The TerraMiner IV which to err on Bitcoin's side, let's say it costs $1,000 USD (I can find it on Amazon for $750 - http://www.amazon.com/CoinTerra-Terraminer-Iv/dp/B00JK64DXA but the original price was $1,200) and uses 2.1kW . So $5000 worth of bitcoin miners = $5000 / $1,000 = 5 machines. 5 machines equals 5* 2.1KW worth of energy = 10.5 kW. So POW uses 10.5 kW of electricity for an equivalent investment POC uses .8 kW of electricity. 10.5/0.8 KW = 13.13 times Which means that POW uses 13.13 more energy than POC.The plus sides and reasons why POC beats POS though that POC is more decentralized, ASIC proof meaning even the little guy can mine, and more secure than POS, etc. And no history key attack potential plus mining is a great way to get new people into crypto currency. You can mine POC with no money spent buying coins first.. once we're doing 100s or 1000s of transactions, it'll be profitable for every day people to connect their extra hard drive space to the Burst network and join the network. Once they have free coins, they are more likely to be long term adopters. And if you need proof regarding the last point that getting miners to join the network will be easier.. go look at Burst's estimated network size: http://burstcoin.eu/charts/estimated-network-sizeIt's barely profitable to mine because people are willing to contribute hard drive space toward earning 'free' coins.. meaning this will be a great way to get people interested in Proof of Capacity currencies in the future because they are ASIC proof. Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread. |
|
|
|
Market survey: What do you think about a hardware wallet for Bursts, like https://www.buytrezor.com/ ? If enough interest exists, we will develop it. I think it's a great idea.. note that it does require rewriting the curve25519 library I believe.. I was going to implement it for Nxt and it seemed like a simple project but turned into a fairly big one. |
|
|
|
exlcuding spam,
is there a thread for talking about all burst asset?
burstforum seems like a great place for this...btw, if you haven't been there in a while, you should check it out.. it's looking a lot nicer these days. |
|
|
|
Is it legit...? Who owns it? For a condensed formulation, ask xiz if he doesnt see this. I own it. |
|
|
|
What is the best description you can come up with for Burst that fits in under 150 characters? It's for the description field for the search results to show up when the website shows up in Google. 5000 Burst for the best description! btw check out: Burst.Money |
|
|
|
Maaaaannnnn "Bob" has stolen nearly 100,000 BURST from my mining wallet.  His address: BURST-DS6V-VWPT-L2BT-344NL Image here: http://imgur.com/1brEjU7I was JUST the other day going to empty it. Wonder how he got in? I haven't used that computer for anything else, ever. Just sits idle. Jerk. Sorry to hear. How complex was your password? Not at all - that part's my fault. I had been emptying it every couple days but for the last few months I've just mostly forgotten about it. I suppose he probably is just brute-force guessing passwords. Did you use your own password or one suggested by the Burst wallet.. I don't buy brute force if you used a suggested password. |
|
|
|
Nice.. though they didn't get it quite right. The article makes it look like the hard drive space is being used to store files.. I mean I guess that is the eventual plan. I just don't see it as a priority in my mind or the thing that makes us special. |
|
|
|
BURST, the unique POC coin, uses the HD for getting coins but, for sure, if the price raise there will appear ASIC and we sill stock docens of HD that could be used for other things.
i dont think that asics will come up in the next years. If the come up, your miners could easy be switched to a maidsafe oder a strojx miner.....so no problem at all. Not so far..... A i7 can get 20MHash/s and a Antminer S4 gives 2 THash/s. So there is a factor 100,000. In BURST ploting a i7 calculate 20,000 nonces/minute (about 5 Gb/min), if you apply the same factor, the hipotetical BURST ASIC will calculate 0,5 PB/min, an equivlalent in the 4 minutes block time to a 2Pb (15% of actual size). The cost of the Antminer S4 is 1500$ and consumes 1500W, the cost of 666 3Tb HD (100$ each) is 66,000$ and consumes (8W each) 5300W (and you would need docens of computers). So, if the price raise and BURST got popularity, ASIC will come, but donīt worry, Bobafett, for then we will drive our own Ferrari without crowdfund the FerrariSharing. This is a large part of the reason I'm pushing for POC2. With POC2 we can shorten block times (probably 30 seconds?), which improves the efficiency of HHD vs ASICs since ASICs have a shorter period of time to do the same amount of work. Plus keep in mind that you plot once then you just pull numbers off the drive.. point being it isn't the i7 doing the having. And keep in mind that most people will use GPUs to plot their drives. Also not understanding, how did you get Ant miner =666 *3 TB worth of drives? |
|
|
|
BURST, the unique POC coin, uses the HD for getting coins but, for sure, if the price raise there will appear ASIC and we sill stock docens of HD that could be used for other things.
i dont think that asics will come up in the next years. If the come up, your miners could easy be switched to a maidsafe oder a strojx miner.....so no problem at all. Nope, especially once POC2 comes out, I'm convinced it is ASIC proof, not just highly ASIC resistant like the current algorithm.. highly doubt we'll be seeing ASIC ever since POC2 can always just bump up the difficultly for ASIC resistance. |
|
|
|
|
I have my own thoughts, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others.. I'm been working on an article for a while now.
What advantages does Proof of Capacity have over Proof of Work?
What advantages does Proof of Capacity have over Proof of Stake?
|
|
|
|
What's wrong with the double-click and drag functionality? On Windows; instead of just double clicking; double click any part of the first word "BURST" and drag the mouse to the last word in the address. This highlights the address from the first word (section) to the last word and nothing else.
Just try it with a tab/pad and you'll see the problem. Telling everyone that they should change how they use their UI is not a good idea (and won't work). Agreed. I think changing to something that can be double-click selected is a good idea. Underscore works for me, win 7 + chrome i pref 'o' to 'x'....but i think that '' is better...nothing in between True.. The reason for separators is like a credit card.. It's easier to manually enter. But I suspect most people will be using digital solutions.. which mean you can copy and paste. And one you have 'o' or 'x' mixed in.. It's not that much less confusing. What about displaying it as this: so manually it is slightly easier to copy one group at a time with 'l's in between letters but also allowing the ls to be removed. BURSTxSYYSlQMGRlBCYNlBVQ2A Then also accept this: BURSToSYYSQMGRBCYNBVQ2A An x or o at the beginning still separates out the Burst slightly, which is nice. Easy enough to allow either an x or an o to be valid.. just a matter of which one should be default? I'd probably vote o too.. just seems slightly easier to see |
|
|
|
I agree with CIYAM.. we should change that "-" to something that can be copied on double-click. Decided to play with the code and figured out how to switch it over to "_" which happens to be copyable. Here try double clicking what will become my new wallet address: BURST_SYYS_QMGR_BCYN_BVQ2A
Except underscores don't select the whole thing when double clicking either. Yup - I would recommend something like this: BURSTxSYYSxQMGRxBCYNxBVQ2A (doesn't look beautiful but at least works everywhere for selection) hmm.. underscores work for me.. but good to know! Maybe it's a windows versus other operating systems thing? Ok, I'll probably switch it to either BURSToSYYSoQMGRoBCYNoBVQ2A or BURSTxSYYSxQMGRxBCYNxBVQ2A, unless anyone else has a reason they prefer a specific alphanumeric character to act as a separator. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Whatever it is, but I think some big players must work out a way to mine big and dump burst price at poloniex these few days~~  You think people are going to start dumping burst? And therefore you'll be able to buy in even cheaper? Why the frowny face? |
|
|
|
|
Any developers who've built the source code in windows? Finding it tricky.. the win-compile.sh is simply exactly the compile.sh, which is doesn't work because it's windows.. not linux and changing the name of the file doesn't magically make it work.
Anyone have experience with javac in bat files? Or Ant or Maven?
Thanks.
I agree with CIYAM.. we should change that "-" to something that can be copied on double-click. Decided to play with the code and figured out how to switch it over to "_" which happens to be copyable. Here try double clicking what will become my new wallet address: BURST_SYYS_QMGR_BCYN_BVQ2A
Everyone approve? We will of course have to give blockchain explorers a chance to make that same tweak.
Note for now, in my build either the "_" or the "-" is able to be input and verified as correct.. at least in theory once I can build the code.
Again, anyone able to help get the code to the point where we can run a .bat file and have the code be built.. maybe after another evening or two of playing with it I can get it working.
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Thanks. Here's V. Buterin's post from the link and is copy pasted by him 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%.
Yeah, I am in the same boat as FakeAccount. Can someone explain what Vitalik Buterin was talking about? So Burst does have a nothing at stake vulnerability in it's original form.. just like Proof of Stake does. The issue is that it is in every individuals 'best interest' to mine along forks of the chain and if more than 50% of the network starts selfishly mining along these chains, then they could end up 51% attacking the network. This is not currently the case but eventually in the far future there will likely be miners who will use special clients that can perform this attack.. but requires 50+% of the network to perform this attack.. and there are about three different ideas in mind for dealing with this that I've discussed with burstdev. Keep in mind that if 50% of the network were mining with this client.. you would've had to have heard about this client and it would be possible to prove due to longer and longer forks showing up in the chain as more people join. If that happened we'd hurry to implement protection. Regarding the economic inefficiency, what he is trying to say is that the miners will always put enough equipment onto the network so that the amount of energy being consumed by their machines is equal to the amount of money being rewarded to the miners since that is the cost they pay.. this does not take into account the fact there is an initial cost that must be amortized over the lifetime of the device. Or the fact that every day users can mine from their own computers, without requiring ASICs. By itself this means that means essentially free energy to mine since many of the people mining will be mining using their PCs during periods of time when their PCs happen to be on anyway. He didn't fully think through the implications and was using some incorrect assumptions for the economic inefficiency point of view.. also Burst had just suddenly become Ethereum's biggest competition.. beating them to implementing what they were famous for and he had to prove that there was something wrong with Burst. Can you imagine the press release we could have put out if he said "Wow, that's a great idea.".. and we had beat them to Automated Transactions? Suddenly the past year or so of work he put in would have been worth a whole lot less. |
|
|
|
ByteBank sounds very interesting.. I fear that Burst is going to start going up too quickly for you to cover that sooner or later though |
|
|
|
Price is in a stalemate because there are no announcements for weeks now. It would be nice to hear how development is going... The Crowdfund was successful, so some further information is appropriate. "ATDevelopmentFund
The purpose of this case is to provide funding to help extend the technical work
and general product development and marketing for AT inside the burst platform." Making it a good time to buy... better to buy when nobody else is buying and sell when they are buying |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
