Just make sure you avoid those Aluminum Foil Hats..turns out they are actually a conspiracy by the government to better be able to read your mind.

More info:
http://www.howtogeek.com/114037/researchers-prove-tin-foil-hats-boost-receptivity-to-government-signals/

I'd recommend contacting Poloniex and asking them for advice.  No, can't include the public key in the first transfer, have to make your own first transfer.. I guess from an account of someone else who owns Burst?  Which is indeed an issue if new people can't get involved because they can't transfer Burst into their account directly from the exchange to their wallet.. of course I guess the faucet should be once way to get around that?

My guess would be those burst aren't lost, that transaction just isn't valid and will expire or maybe go through once you unlock your wallet.. after all it was sent to your account, shouldn't be able to be claimed by anyone else or just be lost.. idk the answer to that one though.

Regarding finding blocks, please check out this calculator: https://bchain.info/BURST/tools/calculator

I suspect you'll need to join a pool to actually be able to mine any blocks with 6 TB.  See the first post for information there.

That seems like a really bad idea to use the same passphrase.. I know there was talk of a theoretical attack that could cause some problems given this within Nxt..  won't give details publicly but I'm going to contact them about that.

But the point is, I hope that nobody else uses the same passphrase for different coins, especially if they are all forks of the same coin and use the same internal structure for a transaction.. my guess is also that they use the same passphrase for all other coins as well.. which in general seems like a bad idea.. hack one passphrase and you get all of their coins.

Yeah, I don't see if as a huge negative.. like you said, still need to have more than half of the hashrate, but if someone could keep it, for a relatively short time, they could cause problems, starting from the past blocks.  Exactly, just something to keep in mind.

The issue is let's say someone started working on a Proof of Work fork.  If they wanted to fake a fork that was 100 blocks long, they would have to remove 50% of the mining power from the main chain to create this fork, this would take 100 blocks to complete however.. by which point in time the network would be 100 blocks into the future, so they'd constantly be playing catch up.

The question is, can you occasionally say fake a fork like this in say 5 minutes with a large enough percentage of network resources that the network accepts and uses to overwrite the 10 confirmations of a blockchain which cheats the system and overrides that calculation?

Interesting... thanks.

Also, how much does Burst have to worry about 'Nothing at Stake'?  Basically you can try to mine on every fork you see?  If someone gets over 50% of the storage, then he can create a separate fork with very little effort that looks correct?  There is one way to sort of get around this but it can't be used to prevent new miners joining the network from joining the wrong fork. So, theoretically, given what is currently implemented.

How large are plots?  I thought the idea was they were hundreds of GB large.. but first post seems to indicate 262144 bytes?  I was thinking plots were something like 200 GB.. large plots would be good for ASIC resistance.. and could probably be used to lure over some litecoiners who recently lose that advantage.  I would target devs or various coins and people who have made a difference first instead of just announcing it to the community as a whole though.

Appreciate it, the problem is that if I'm implementing this nto someone else's coin, they are making money and I'm not.. because I didn't get in on the ground floor. the only way that I can see to make real money with it seems to be to start my own coin.. But there are already too many as it is, in my opinion.

But maybe the name recognition alone is enough.

Thank for treating me with respect.. I was on the fence about whether or not to patent or pursue anything like that. NXT community was encouraging me not to actually. But I was thinking about it.. and you know the biggest reason I want to pursue it? This thread, being called a troll, being told I don't know anything, etc. But if my initial reception had been closer to Dabs, might've freely shared the idea.. honestly, I'd prefer to just talk openly about it and bounce it around with others.. But there is something to be said for trying to make some money of it.. and for not wanting to help out Bitcoin if type this is the reception I get.


It isn't exactly the kind of thing you do overnight.. But again, thank you for providing me more incentive to try to jump through the hoops and hassle and spend the money to try to patent.

Anyone figure out what happened with all those people getting hacked?  Anyone figure out what happened?

We're not going to end up with an exchange losing a whole bunch of coins and someone flooding the market, are we?

  This coin has a lot of potential.. but I guess still has a few kinks to work out, should be a better way of doing that... surely Bitcoin has a better way of doing that right?  I guess they use the wallet.dat file.. which is an improvement.

I'd prefer it if Nxt required more secure passwords than they currently do.. seems extremely unlikely it'll get hacked but still 10 random words.. I'd make it more and/or include random letters and symbols.  But I guess it's probably good enough for now.

Nxt is more secure now.. when Nxt first launched you had to pick your own passwords.. when people pick single dictionary word passwords.. that's a problem.  It's a reason the wallet now forces you to choose a new password the way it does.


Good that you reviewed the diff

NXT wasn't premined, it was IPOed!  BCNext should have waited longer and allowed more people to get in but I actually think it's a very fair way to start a proof of stake currency.

And could've been a non-burst wallet or software.  Odds are it'd be within the crypto community given that most don't know about Burst.. or maybe they were even targeting Nxt and if a hacker can find the Nxt wallet, he can find probably find Burst, given the similarity.

Though again.. it comes down to how you were storing your passwords, since the wallet shouldn't be storing passwords.. so even if you find the wallet it doesn't lead to passwords, unless you were holding passwords in a file in the same folder?  We had someone lose 6 million Nxt that way..

How do you guys store your passwords?  Nothing you could have done with it or software recently downloaded?

And seriously, how many people reviewed the source code?  Only burstcoin?

If it's an issue with the algorithm or something this could be bad.. reminds me of the early Nxt hack where some guy discovered he could empty the wallet of anyone who'd ever sent him money.  LUCKILY, he was a great guy and reported it an it was fixed up but that's my biggest worry when investing into a new coin.. bugs or potential hacks.

So I'm supposed to spend months of my life working for free?  Don't get me wrong I like crypto but I want to make some money.  I was pretty excited about sharing the idea..tell you what.

Anyone willing to pay me not to patent the idea? lol  I'll share the idea with you first given a non-disclosure agreement.

Did you download any software recently?  Particularly crypto related?  Maybe input your password into a mining pool?  A password that long should be quite secure against hacking without someone reading it off of your machine or you giving it to someone.  Just wondering how the thief could have gotten it.  Either that or maybe there is a hack in the wallet.. anyone check anything into source code that wasn't well tested?

Keep in mind this is a Nxt clone, Nxt has tons of supporters and just like Burst can take from Nxt, Nxt can take from Burst... then Nxt benefits more than Burst does.

Also, here's my issue with this big update to add subscriptions, why would I agree to a subscription when the price could fluctuate by a factor of 3 or more between payouts?  I wouldn't even use a Bitcoin subscription, let alone any alt coin's subscription feature.. not until the price very much stabilizes.

Thank you, now how do you verify that the correct person generated the block?

And what if multiple people have their plots tell them that they can generate a block at the same time?

I don't understand why does 4096 optimize it for hdd?  Simply because there is so much data to hold on to per plot? Why not SDDs?

Given this:
Plots are generated by taking a public address and a nonce, then hashing it, pre-appending the resulting hash, repeating the hash-pre-append cycle many times, and then hashing the whole thing and xor'ing the last hash with the whole thing.

First of all, how does someone win the right to author their first block?

After authoring their first block, they then take the last block they authored, and use the next scoop from their plot, in order to prove they have the right to author their next block? Then when they get to the end repeat from the beginning?  Is there a concept of difficulty?

I understand how the plots are overlapped but I don't understand how he can claim sequential reads.  All plots don't stay in sync with each other right?  You could be further along in one plot than the other right?

Also, have any coders looked through this coded and approved or has only one guy written it?  People analyzed the algorithm looking for flaws?

Ok, so hdd are still currently the best techonology.. if you can turn it off or on for extended periods of time, maybe energy efficiency isn't a big deal.

It's an interesting algorithm, couple thing I'm trying to figure out if someone could help me out:

How reliably can you be sure when it'll be your turn to mine?  I guess multiple people could potentially mine this block but it's just the person with the highest number wins or something like that?

Also, I mostly understand how you create the plots from reading the introduction.. how do you then verify that you pulled out the correct one and that you have rights to author the block to the rest of the network in a way that they can verify it.. seems to me like the rest of the network would almost have to do a lot of heavy duty hashing to copy the way you generated that number in the first place and arrive at the same number in order to verify it.  Must be some way around that?

Yes, but Nxt has plans for a system that would enable protection against even 90% of the forging stake attacking the network.  Actually it's a fairly simple and ingenious tweak to the algorithm.. if you don't receive a block within 15 seconds (maybe to be bumped to a minute), then you don't count it's "Base Target" toward the total cumulative score of the chain when choosing the longest chain to follow.

It is true that blockchain trimming would be much trickier.. and probably involves using something along the lines of service providers, where others host the chain for you and you check multiple chains, or every few months or every year or however often you create a 'new genesis block' that includes all the current balances.  But you needing to use data internal to the blockchain means 'lite' clients are probably out of the question, unless you trust others to provide the blockchain up to this point.  Which may be doable, so, they are using economic clustering in order to provide extra protection against attack on the network.  So you can have many big businesses all choose the 'correct' chain they are running on and provide.


But back on topic:

I wasn't trying to insult Burst.. I was thinking about sticking a few BTC into it and I'm just researching my potential investment.

A couple problems with my calculations:
Turns out my calculation was one using an 'energy efficient' hard drive.. which is less reliable.  So you'd pretty much want to use one that works at 10W instead under full load.

Also, I started thinking that maybe you could frequently idle your hard drive but it is believed that's much worse on it's life than continually running it.. so you would want to keep it under full load.. at which point you actually use more energy than the Bitcoin network.  Which is a shame.. I really thought this was a cool idea and might address that problem and that it was basically the whole point of choosing proof of storage over proof of work.  I will admit that reusablity and the fact that this can be made into something that allows everyday people to use that piece of hard drive space that they don't use and get paid some tiny amount for it, is appealing.

It's possible that new and upcoming hard drives will be more efficient and fix this issue but the biggest problem is that their price is going down so much faster than their energy consumption, so this problem will likely become even worse.  And not only that but I suspect that Bitcoin miners will also continue to get more efficient with time.

What are other advantages to using Proof of Capacity over Proof of Work besides energy? 

Ones I see are:
It's pretty ASIC resistant, because if you can make better harddrives.. then you can use them in PCs everywhere.
Related to which, you don't need fancy hardware and if you get a hard drive specifically for this issue.
Hard drives are reusable for other purposes, if they don't die first.

I really do like this coin, just trying to look at it from all angles.


EDIT: WAIT.. I might see what you are saying.. I misunderstood the blu-ray thing since that specific article doesn't mention energy efficiency, but after looking around other places.. I see that those are significantly more energy efficient.  Turning the hardrive on and off is indeed not good for it but only every 512 or so blocks wouldn't be bad.. How long are blocks?