now without a shadow of a doubt buying at 100 150 sat is much more profitable than mining. If this continue to grow , buying at 200 sat would be better than buying hardware to mine.
Short term yes, long term.. setting up a miner now would probably be more profitable. |
|
|
|
Off topic: This is so interesting/funny/promising: Burst is up 15-20% in the last 24h but not a post about it in the thread. It's like people really don't care about short term gains. People don't think "in one month", which is an eternity in alts, but here is "maybe in 2015".
I think this long term perspective is utterly promising for Burst. The coin might not be comparable with BTC, but some similarities are there with bitcoin miners in 2010-2011. With that, we can also take advantage in developing Burst long term.
On topic, let me formulate my ideas a bit. From the comments it looks like people agree that we need work/efforts in the PR area done. Perhaps it's not exactly what Wulfcastle suggests, but still something similar.
So why can't we form a Burst (PR) management team? The team should design a detailed (non-technical) road-map with items of importance. The road-map should be created ín close communication with the community, and then making sure that this map is implemented.
The team could use the escrow account, to which everyone can donate coins and that the team can use to pay people to do certain things. As i said already, we need stuff done but it's vital for the endeavor that the whole thing is coordinated and done according to a underlying logic to promote Burst.
That said, it's great with all the fine initiatives from the community members which should continue and be encouraged --- but it's a loss of resources in terms of competences and time if people work separate on connected issues (be it websites, games, videos, texts, socail media, etc.).
I would more than willing to support such a PR management team and a escrow account. I don't know who should be in it or who will be director, that should be decided by the community, but I see burstcoin, uray and crowetic as strong candidates to this team due to their efforts already done to burst.
If such a team is formed and headed by a person of competence, I will as a start donate 50,000 burst to a escrow account that they can use, a sum that will be much higher if things go well. The sum isn't much money-wise but if a lot of community members contribute to this, the sum will be substantial over time (perhaps also adding a bit of buy support).
Concluding, this suggested team is PR related (in a wide sense), but it's equally possible to create an equivalent technical management team, to support and coordinate work in that area of the same reasons. Of course, I'm equally willing to support an initiative like that with funds for a escrow account.
Part of out is that volume is so low that even though it's up people can't cash out.. a single person can swing the price one way or another.. I think I'm probably more than half of yesterday's volume.. was waiting for before 100 satisfies but when it didn't seem like that was happening, I decided to buy. I like the PR idea, I have a little bit of experience when it comes to marketing as well as technical and that kind of thing as well as technical experience, I'd be happy to help.. I think website is the first priority. |
|
|
|
|
Irontiga and I are both new at website design, we've been working on something but if Wulfcastle has experience and is willing to work on this, I say let's use his experience. I've been working on content more than design and Irontiga is still busy for a few days.
3 BTC seems about reasonable, especially if paid out after the website launches. Maybe I can help out with content and we can knock a little bit off the price? I'm willing to pay 1 BTC after the website is completed.
|
|
|
|
Considering we already have a massive amount of the tech space investing time and money into improving data storage, capacity capabilities should be relatively predictable with steady and consistent growth. Any plans of implementing a purpose for all that data storage similar to storj.io?
Check out first post, burstcoin does have plans to add something along those lines too at some point. Storj dev here. I think super3 (or another user) mentioned this at one point, but it could be possible to integrate the services. You could run both Burst and Storj (DriveShare) together and depending on what's more profitable for you at the moment, the space allocated to each service could change dynamically. Burst could also be used as another way to demonstrate available capacity to the Storj network. I could see a scenario where I have 10 TB of drive. I offer all 10 TB to Storj and Burst, but at the moment the Storj network only gives me contracts for 5 TB worth of chunks, then you use the rest of the available space for Burst. If Storj can utilize your drive more, you can dynamically allocate more to Storj, etc. depending on the economics. I mean we're all open-source so why not take advantage of the strengths of each platform? Good idea, thanks for reaching out to Burst! It would indeed require a little bit of thinking regarding how mining is organized but I think that's a great idea. You could originally allocate hard drive space to mine for Burst, then when StorJ requests access, let StorJ take over those sectors. It is possible to rework the plotting to the point where it can work.. would require thinking about how to do it most efficiently. I think both coins would win with this deal and it would be a good partnership. You could even cross market them nicely where both promote the other one.. or integrate one into the wallet of the other or something, so they share a wallet. |
|
|
|
Considering we already have a massive amount of the tech space investing time and money into improving data storage, capacity capabilities should be relatively predictable with steady and consistent growth. Any plans of implementing a purpose for all that data storage similar to storj.io?
Check out first post, burstcoin does have plans to add something along those lines too at some point. |
|
|
|
SO... the price on this shitcoin STILL hasn't gone up, huh? Is there anyone here still stupid enough to even be mining it? I didn't bother to read any previous posts before typing this. I'm glad I left it behind a long time ago. I still have my 10,931 coins sitting on an exchange in case it ever does pop up. Feel free to offer me 800 satoshis each coin for them.
If it's really that useless and you think it's that stupid.. then please just sell it right now. Why would I buy your coins at 800 Satoshis when I could buy someone else's for under 100 Satoshis? I'll give you 100 satoshi each if you want it. |
|
|
|
Il little question: today mining in solo i forged a block with 700,000 (700 thousands) coins but i received only 8600 burst. The others where goes? I see that all coins in the block are sent to the BURST-5NVZ-GXHA-N3S9-DGZBA account. Why?  Who is the owner of that account? Thanks Are you part of a pool? I suspect it went to the pool. I've been curious, I know the basic idea but how do pools work from a technical angle? |
|
|
|
I read the post. It looks like they're just using investor money to buy scrypt ASICs to mine LTC and then use that to buy burst walls. I can see that helping burst, but I'm not entirely certain how the investors make money... giving them devalued burst doesn't seem all that worthwhile (unless they always hold).
It sounds cool, putting aside the lack of transparency and plenty of room for whoever is controlling the project to skim off the top.
Regardless, still thinking about getting into burst. It'd be nice if there were more poc coins though, if burst starts spiraling the drain it's nice to have more options.
I think it's a great idea, you are making a lot less risky investment by essentially renting scrypt ASICs, those mine for Litecoin, Litecoin gets dumped on the market, Burst is bought with those BTC, and investors are paid back in Burst. I disagree.. i think it's best to be the only POC coin until POC coins start getting some publicity, because you know that Burst is the one that will take off. |
|
|
|
No buy walls atm...
feel free to place some  I'm broke. Really broke.  Just had to spend the rest of my btc for the day, but I can do some work soon on the buy walls. I'd prefer if you let it go down a little first  still have a couple to throw in.. I suspect we'll see sub-100 Burst soon though if I just wait it out. |
|
|
|
I actually have jl777 the idea for the multi-gateway Maybe I can see if they can support Burst... that being said, I didn't do anything more than throw the idea out there and don't really like that version.. I would much rather do something multi-gateway like except using multi-sigs found within Burst/Nxt, which I believe are finally being added soon to Nxt first? Maybe next version? The reason being more than 3 computers would be more trustless. Also jl777 is pretty heavily invested into Nxt, I don't see him supporting the competition. But can't hurt to ask I suppose. And I do see him at least being willing to allow Nxt <-> Burst trading. |
|
|
|
|
1,000,000 times faster than CPUs?
|
|
|
|
New comparison is BURST network at the popularity of Bitcoin right now vs. Bitcoin:
Bitcoin statistics stay the same as above.
BURST Electricity when an equal amount of money is invested (not including free hard drive space on the operating system drive):
Assumption: The average price of the Antminer S3+ costs about $350 since its release and runs at 450 GH/s.
284,772,770 / 450 = 632829 Antminer S3+ on the Bitcoin network
632829 * $350 = $221,490,150 (Actual amount is less considering how many ASICs are more efficient)
Assumption: A 3 TB hard drive costs $90.
$221,490,150 / $90 * 3 = 7,383,005 TB on network
Round up to 10,000,000 TB to account for hard drive space on the operating system partition.
10,000,000 TB * 10 W/TB = 100,000,000 W = 100,000 kilowatts
I rounded these numbers to give BURST the worst possible energy consumption. This is more of an estimate because it is really hard to know how much money has really gone into Bitcoin ASICs and figuring out how much space is added from C: partitions.
Using those number Bitcoin by comparison uses 0.77W/GH (Antminer efficiency), in other words 284,772,770GH * 0.77W/GH = 219,275,032.9W So they are fairly similar actually if the two grow similarly, right? |
|
|
|
you miss the running costs for the asics. today you can put 6tb capacity into a miner which consumes with cpu a maximum of 15-20 watts.
a asic consuming 15-20 watts may reach a capacity of round about 1 tb (compared to current sha256 asics).
Let's compare an ASIC to a hard drive, assuming that you can do a SHABAL256 hash in approximately the same amount of time as SHA256 hash, which I looked around and that seems about accurate.. though I grant that Bitcoin is SHAing much smaller chunks of data as blocks are currently smaller than 256 MB/s.. (so do larger blocks mean fewer Hashes per second?).. maybe that plays a role? https://cointerra.com/product/aire-miner-bitcoin-miner/This ASIC could therefore do 4.5 TH/s, requires 1350 watts (0.225 watt per GH/s), and costs $2,500. So 4.5 TH/s = 4.5TH/s * 60 seconds/minutes * 4 minutes/block = 1080 TH/block One plot is 4096 Hashes.. so an ASIC could produce 1080,000,000,000,000 Hashes per block/4096 Hashes per plot = 263,671,875,000 plots per block. So an ASIC can test 263,671,875,000 plots per block for the price of $2,500 and 1350 Watts. Which gives you 1350 Watts per 263,671,875,000 plots = 0.00000000512 W per simulated plot for an ASIC. And a cost of $2,500 per 263,671,875,000 plots = $0.000,000,009,5 per simulated plot Assume a hard drive costs $35 per TB and uses 10W to run full power, but only runs for long enough to read the 256 kb plot from the drive, which at upper words of 80MB/s, so negligible. So it idles for the majority of the block and say on average uses 3.5 W. So with hard drives you are using $35 and 3.5W per plot Which means that ASICs win by a landslide. I'm sure I'm missing something, so please explain this further to me! I hear it currently takes hours to generate a plot with a GPU and sounded like other people were testing this, so I suspect I am missing something.. but please tell me what! What is the bottleneck in GPU plotting? Writing to the harddrive? Because an ASIC could get around this by simply not storing the result even if it means burning through the exact same calculations repeatedly every block. Edit: ran this by burstcoin, who tells me that this calculation is incorrect, that 1 round of shabal256 hashing is approximately half a million sha256 calculations.. so multiple those ASIC numbers by half a million.. and it is much more ASIC resistant. |
|
|
|
|
In the middle of writing a reply, need a number though, anyone know the number of bytes per scoop? There is some standard size, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Fastest ASIC versus fastest CPU?
|
|
|
|
after reading the miner source code, i think we dont need disk space at all we can create opencl kernel of this code : https://github.com/BurstProject/pocminer/blob/master/src/pocminer/util/MiningPlot.javanonce argument is any nonce u want, addr is ur account number we can bruteforce any nonce within 240 seconds each block using GPU and broadcast the best nonce that produce lowest deadline assuming GPU can do shabal256 at 1 GH/s , that is equal to 240 Giga Nonce (240 secs blocktime) which is equal to 60 GB of disk space ( 1 nonce = 0.25MB ) and again, getting into 1 TB disk space performance, will require atleast 17 GPU (assuming 1 GH/s is accurate) conclusion : if it is near 1 GH/s its cheaper to use harddrive than GPU and loking at a glance of shabal256 it is really cheap in computation, i think we really need replace shabal with more memory intensive algo such as scrypt or something to make harddrive mining is far more efficient than GPU or future ASIC this is my understanding after reading the miner code, using disk space  and after using GPU, without disk  This doesn't seem very ASIC resistant to me. Seems to me like yes, it'll take more time to be ASIC resistant and ASICs won't be as efficient as straight POW but once you can create an ASIC it's no longer Proof of Capacity and the coolest thing about the coin doesn't mean much... what am I missing? |
|
|
|
why not write a good story about Burst and submit it to me for publishing?
Ahh.. you weren't saying you'd write the story for us just publish it, still sounds nice. Where do you publish? |
|
|
|
|
Headline/eye catcher for the website:
"A new breed of cryptocurrency" vs "A new breed of mining" vs something totally different.
My thinking is that we should emphasize that Burst is a cryptocurrency.
Also, we're all agreed that Burst is a currency instead of a 'token' used to buy cryptos via the monetary system, right? Not the only reason but I think that's a big part of the reason why I think Nxt isn't valued higher.. because BCNext was pushing for it to not be considered an actually currency.
|
|
|
|
How would would estimate the amount of energy used by the burst network vs Bitcoin?
I guess the biggest question is, what percentage of the time do hard drives need to be online to be used to mine?
There are a lot of assumptions in these numbers, but it should still give a rough estimate.
Bitcoin network electrical consumption:Assumption: The average Bitcoin miner has the efficiency of an Antminer S4 of 0.69 Watts/(GH/s).In reality, this assumption is very generous because the efficiency for most ASICs will be worse than one of the most power efficient available. Total Bitcoin hashrate as of 11/20/14 at 11:20pm: 284,772,770 GH/sTotal electricity consumption (at a minimum): 0.69 W/(GH/s) * (284,772,770 GH/s) = 196,493,211.3 Watts = 196,493 kilowatts
BURST network electrical consumption:Assumption: The average hard drive on the BURST network is 1 TB.According to http://www.buildcomputers.net/power-consumption-of-pc-components.html, the average hard drive consumes 10 W. Most hard drives on the network are probably 2 TB or larger, but assuming 1 TB is a worst cast scenario (two 1 TB hard drives use 20 W vs one 2 TB hard drive uses 10 W). Assumption: BURST network is at its highest difficulty and largest size at 9000 TB.10 W/drive * 9000 drives = 90,000 W = 90 kilowatts90 / 196,493 = 0.045% of Bitcoin's electricity at current levels EDIT: 10 W is the most that a hard drive typically uses. Idling uses about half as much power or less. Started reading this a little bit more closely.. I would like a comparison that is similar network sizes.. so let's say we grew to be Bitcoin sized and just as much money was placed into buying hard drives as has been placed into buying ASICs. Remember that if mining with an onboard hard drive, it basically doesn't count.. it's electricity any decentralized network has to use to stay up and running and run the blockchain. And if it's an external drive then you can read from it and not just idle it but completely turn it off until it's your next turn to mine.. after all it serves no purpose to you(so it runs for 1 minutes per 24 hours or something like that? That's the number I can't figure out how to estimate) or at least that's how I see it, is that fair? Also, I was worried about this but Google did a study that shows that spinning up and down the drive barely affects it's lifetime. (3% more likely to fail after 2 years of being turned off and on repeatedly) |
|
|
|
|
Thank you vipervince! Will use that calculation on the 'energy consumption' page.
Different question, is it possible to boil the time it takes to plot a hard drive down to approximate hours per TB? Haven't plotted or tried mining yet.
Also, could people throw out some suggestions for questions that should be placed within a Burst FAQ?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
