I think it's brilliant. Takes care of all BURST's problems by avoiding them completely.

But my suggestion is that you make such an asset for each coin, any coin, BTC, LTC, ETH, XRP etc. It would be easier to manage this way, than all of them mixed up.

Then you can still make assets that buy into multiple of the above assets, to get the coin portfolio effect.

What part of open source didn't you get?
Besides, I hope luxe will review the code. He seemed interested in the idea.

I don't want to.
But here's a better one for you. Why don't you buy some BURST?

Multiply by the devaluation compared to BTC you are getting 500% actually.

Worst yet is that if the Somalian government declares war to BURST, I think even they can put 4PB together and win. But if somehow they can't pull it off, there's always the Liberian government.

Oh, there's more, what if US government declares cryptocoins illegal? You might even have to conceal your identity. Are you prepared? Or will you just quit?

that's actually good progress, until now they've been trying to hide from the obvious.


Good work! I'd buy from you, but I prefer to remain anonymous. That's not a crime, especially considering that we are in the crypto community.

I may yet buy, cheap raids are hard to come by. But I won't be using D9G24  If I do, next thing you know, they'll call homeland security on me.

It would not be fair to attack with other people's hard drives, unless of course they want to But if I sell it, it is no longer my decision to make.

The threat does exist, whatever I attack or not. There's only one cure for it: more hash. A plot compatible clone would certainly help. And definitely cannot harm.


Ridiculous, not really. In fact is anybody certain that the source code of burst does not contain malicious code? Has anybody even checked it out? If you ask me, I haven't.  What about the miners? You could at the very least compile everything from source if you are having this concern.

Anyhow, I will not make much changes to the code, github does give you the diffs, so it will be easy enough to verify that I haven't added anything malicious.

That's exactly what I've been saying all this time. I'm glad to get some approval.

The thing is, you can't just hold, you have to pump, in order to back up your holding strategy.


Even if it does, the prices will reflect the risk of dealing with burst, burst is far too unstable, and it's only going down. The store has to find a way to dump real quick. 6 confirmations until you get it to polo may put you at risk, if you would accept the coin at the top buy value. You can hold a stash of burst on polo, but then that's also a risk.


Yes, and you need to pump. Of course, you don't hold all the burst, so it doesn't make sense that you pump it alone. It would be fair if all holders would participate. I actually made an attempt to pump it along with a few other holders, but somehow I ended up supporting at least 50% of the buy orders, while having only 20% of the coins, in our group. I tried, but did not get much help from the community.

correct.
I will announce with a few days in advance before I launch anything.
but in any case, my coin will not reward the first miners any better than the ones who join later.
and will encourage dumping, reward structure being inflationary, block reward being proportional to difficulty.

my theory is that this coin, and many other altcoins die because everybody holds. am I right or wrong, we will see, but it won't cost anything extra to mine it.

Thus far burst is crashing, that part we can all see   I've said this in march, when the price was 170 sat, so far I've only been proven correct.

that's funny because I found the logs where you told me about your child porn enterprises.

and is that a fact?
as I recall you said you are involved in child pornography. is that a fact?
perhaps that's why you really have 90TB of disk space laying around.

Last I've checked botnets were illegal. I would never engage in illegal activities.
It seems to that haitch is the one with no proof here

Well, allow me to retort, you have quite some hashpower yourself, where's that coming from? I guess you're not paying standard market rates. Or you're crazier than I am.

But all I'm saying is: burst hashpower is low. Get more hashpower!
And the only reasonable way to get it that I can think of is by increasing the rewards ( reward increase or price increase ). Surely at least price increase would benefit all the holders, yet they don't seem to care. No way of doing that without pumping, why don't they form an alliance of their own, and act together to pump it?

In any case, I see support for my future clone. I will do that.
But be assured, if you allow the hashrate to drop to the point where I have 51% I feel obligated to attack. No hard feelings.

that's alright, can't hurt that I asked though, right?
and there's the fact that I think your strategy is self defeating in the long run. but you don't have to agree.
i'm just saying.
listen or not, its up to you.

With the way burst market is going, it wouldn't be too hard. usually merged mining is done against strong coins

yep. I'm not sure if you realize, if we form a 51% alliance, we effectively double our rewards. as in with 51% of the hashpower we get all blocks, instead of just 51%

that would require the users to form an alliance otherwise the hashpower will be distributed the same way as in burst. plus that there's no single miner that can attack me. in fact there isn't any group of 5 miners that can attack me.

still if burst users could agree on that, and attack me it would be quite an achievement. no big deal for me, its brand new clone, I just make a new one.



yea well thats the idea. plus that my coin will be able to support the growth of hashpower, due to the reward structure.

lol, does anybody here have a sense of humor?
I was just messing with you.

Yea, sure I'd appreciate a node.

luxe, has perfect understanding of the implications of dual mining, it only hinders performance when blocks are simultaneously submitted on both networks.

so the performance improvement is somewhat marginal. all the same, it's not that hard to make a multicoin aware miner.

and you can use the same miner connection for all coins. this reduces pool load.


not really. there's only the issue of scheduling the reads when blocks come in simultaneously.

yes, it can, but it is a pathetic getwork implementation. and since i already have better code, why not use it.

was mine


I appreciate it, but make up your mind, a page ago, you said you were against me.
Thus far I'm thinking to work with crowetic and Elmit on the pool stuff.

well it's pretty much my idea. maybe you should send me 1 mil

miners already exist. multicoin optimized miners, not yet.

my pool protocol, the client version will most likely be released.
pool code most likely not, but provided to pools that support me, and that I can trust not to release it