Okay, what if we make the following modifications...


1. The cap stays, but coins are added to its total.

2. Rewards are still raised, and decline in reward is lowered. Reward goes to 15k/block now, and reward decline changes to match bitcoin's halving times, by going to 1.455% per month.

3. Transaction fees go up too, minimum goes to 2 or more BURST per transaction, until we believe we can lower it again when there are many more transactions in the network.



This gives incentive for miners to jump back in now and make network bigger again, during this we work our asses off and get the market mods done, mixer AT integrated, etc. Make the market browser better with categories and searchable, etc. Hire a PR company to promote the decentralized market, and get many more users to it.

Get more assets up and running, and work hard to get investors at the same time.

Uh, don't you think that vbcs would've been one of the first people I contacted? Since he's on the team? You think I chose the most likely person to cause complete disagreement in the community as a first choice? Get real man seriously.

I hardly ever see the growth affect the price proportionally, in fact, I see many capped coins that don't grow in value at all, regardless of their other growth. There are so many other factors in play, especially in such a small market that is the altcoin scene.

The supply being unlimited just means the growth would have to match, the coins would stay more relative to hardware costs (network running costs) and the use of the marketplace would make the coin be used. What you said is what we're looking for. Miners to mine and sell, traders to trade, the coin to be moved around a lot. More volume, using the coin on the market without worry of holding for future value, and the miners to get a solid payment based on the difficulty. The less the size of the network, the less the reward. The goal would be to have a coin that is used constantly. The goal would be for the use of the market (and other features) to grow, become more and more popular, and thus make the infinite amount of coins not really matter. We're looking for people to NOT hold the coin and hope for value, we're looking for a coin that makes its own value based on its use and the market costs of running the network and what miners are willing to sell for.

I like it, bring more miners online!   This is the whole goal anyway, right? MORE MINERS!



I would love to be able to bring more disks online but I won't be able to at the moment due to changes in my company that are basically a re-boot of the way I'm operating, and thus my income is temporarily lower than usual. Although as soon as possible I would love to bring about 200TB more to the network.


By no means does me supporting bitladen as the developer, mean I support his attack on the network (if we let it get to that point.) I support fighting! This means that the network is growing, which IS my goal here.

Regardless of what you may think, it is actually bit's goal as well. He just has a much more 'forceful' way of showing it.


This doesn't have to be a war, but I think whatever gets more miners to the network works for me

Now, what's the suggestion for development? Funding? If we can solve all the issues in another way, I've been open to this from the beginning. Although, I think the issue (main issue anyway) will be the development without the funding first. Finding a dev to work for free, and is active and qualified, isn't a simple task.



oh, and tiga, I never said I was sane heh.


But seriously tho, yes, I may sometimes support 'radical' ideas or drastic changes, sometimes this makes people love me, sometimes the opposite. I generally hope for some middle ground, but if I get love that works too.

Thank you for the great, and well thought out response. I appreciate it.

I think throwing away the java code and going with c might be something that bit would be for as well. It looks like a clone might be the only option here, I was just hoping to continue with BURST, as to not leave it here in disarray. Maybe we start all the assets over? I honestly didn't even really look at it that way, but you're absolutely right about the asset issue.

I agree that a fork would be sweet, especially with the ability to now use cross chain transfers with another coin besides QORA, but the thing I see that is going to still remain, is people not using the ATs yet. I think ATs will get use once we can make them extremely simple. The idea of the transition AT is great. Very good to see some actual thought being put into this and not just immediately shutting everything down.

We had planned all along that if another coin was created, the BURST plots would remain usable. Thus allowing dual mining of both coins.

It seems this is the way we're going to have to go, as the BURST community simply doesn't like the personality of the developer I chose.


Although, the more I think about this, I do think this would lead to some very interesting outcomes indeed. Very much appreciated response, once again thanks.

I can see the issue with bitladen's insults to people who he doesn't agree with, but that isn't likely to change. Rest assured, this is why I would remain the 'face' of the coin. bit would just do the main development.

I think too, that we can come to a reasonable solution here with what has been presented. We have mentioned that we don't want to leave burst devless, we have given options for a temporary replacement and ways to pay for permanent replacements. Ways we believe the coin can continue longer and be mineable forever with more profit, and ways to help the coin become used more.

The details can be modified, they can be discussed, and I've given many requests for OTHER IDEAS.

Only maybe incomeasset has given a solution AND a way to carry it out, and HOW to carry it out.

All other suggestions are just words without a plan of action.


I welcome once again, anyone, to come up with another idea, a way it will be carried out, why you think it will work, and someone who is capable to do it, and willing in the current situation.





*Also, I feel the need to point out, I never said for sure the main dev is gone forever, I just said he's MIA. The last thing he mentioned (which was a couple weeks before he actually went out of contact) was that he may have things in the future personal he needed to handle. Then there was no further important information. I feel like this is very disappointing, and he could have at least come in and said he was leaving, or said he had to be gone a while, something, but he didn't. So at this point I label him 'MIA'. No one has heard anything from him is all I mean by this. I for one, don't think waiting forever for his return and letting no core development happen, is a good idea. That's all. So I've come up with the only viable option I've got at the moment, and someone willing to help implement it.*



Please tho, by all means, anyone else do the same, and I'll gladly look over your proposal as well.



This is NOT about just making money, however, like I mentioned in my paper, I feel that the majority of MINERS feel that way, they look at ROI only when choosing a coin, which is why I believe higher rewards AT THIS POINT IN TIME will bring more miners in.

I also mentioned that the overall goal of BURST would eventually be 'normal computer users' who would mine on their extra space, thus making the network extremely decentralized. I am already promoting this idea to my computer clients, and have a couple that have picked up BURST, using daWallet's new GUI, and are plotting space as we speak.

The modifications to the Marketplace would make the coin more used, and bring more people by bringing attention, and thus there would be many more people putting money into the coin. I don't think the price would get as low as you think with active development working toward these modifications.



Issue remains that the team is quitting, the dev hasn't been heard from, and without paying out of pocket (or from select few donators) we aren't able to hire a dev or marketers. I'm doing what I can but I'm one person, the people that remain in the team are doing what they can but they're also only a few people with not much time.

Even with all of us working very hard, the limits of the reach of our promotion VS that of a professional promotion team is going to be pretty big.

The amount of work needed requires more people to help. I haven't had many requests by the community to join and help.

Ideas are good, but how we get them done specifically is where the problem comes in.

I'm glad you're happy with the way things are. What makes me unhappy is seeing the size of the network drop. Seeing people say they've quit mining because it just isn't worth it, and knowing there are other ways both available now and coming soon that people could potentially use their disk space for better rewards, and thus making the network drop moreso.

I am just asking for suggestions, specific suggestions with ideas on how to make it happen.

I guess if you think everything is fine, that's cool. Thanks for the comment.

Not sure I see how it would make current miners more greedy... explain please.

Yes, marketing is great, but there's only so much a couple people can do. We gladly accept the assistance from the community when offered.

I can start the crowdfund now for the signature campaign, and lets see how many people actually donate. This is a notorious issue with anything we post asking for monetary assistance.

I don't think I understood a single word of your first sentence.

Most of the team has left for one reason or another. This would be an attempt to build another from the remaining members, and gain new members as well.

We readily encourage the community to help with anything they can, very few actually have.

There are still many edits possible in the paper, as I mentioned multiple times.

I'm not quite sure what your point of posting this is...

Here is a link to my paper, it isn't fully edited, just wanted people to see the ideas that I had proposed to the team.

The document is commentable, so leave a comment (make sure you leave your btt username at the end or beginning) and we can discuss, or you can quote parts and discuss here, or in the burst team chat.


Look forward to seeing the opinions of the community.



Link to Crowetic's Suggestion Document for 'BURST ReBorn' below...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xk23cNYy1BfV5DNto5FjG-3l1VUDFXETAqHbeyK7rX4/edit?usp=sharing

I'll be posting a link to my paper soon, just doing a couple modifications to it. But as of now, the entire plan hasn't been seen by anyone but the core team. I will be posting it for the entire community as soon as possible.

I doubt he's in the richlist because he doesn't hold his coins very long.

I've also proposed a change in the core structure of the team, so that it would be more business like.

Currently a 51% attack isn't possible yet, luckily. But the trends show the network shrinking, this is what we're trying to prevent. Because whether you believe it or not, bitladen isn't the bad guy here.

The problem, is that this kind of attack is even POSSIBLE. This in itself means that our network is too small. If we're legitimately to a point where 51% is a possibility, there needs to be some changes.

Does anyone disagree?

Who here thinks everything is fine the way it is? Who here thinks that everything that has been going on is just fine? Who here thinks that the BURST network is not in a situation that needs change? If you think this, please tell me what you think the future looks like and how we should get there?

The problem I've seen, is that no one has any other ideas, they mostly agree that changes need to be made, but have nothing to offer as far as WHAT should be changed, or WHO could do it. Not only COULD, but WOULD and wouldn't ask for any payment.

The only payment bit's asking for is a change that would help the entire mining community of the coin. A change that would give a reason to not only continue mining BURST, but for new miners to jump in and start.

We all realize that today's crypto market is different than when BTC started, right? There are many different factors that must be taken into consideration when developing a model for the coin. The old school model was fine for BTC, but it seems BTC only is the one that will be successful with this model. Show me another alt with this model that has kept up with the decline.

Do you really think that if we continue this way, that we will have enough transactions on the network to make it worth it to miners at the end when the blocks are mined out?

This mining style is BY FAR the most power efficient, but we've STILL got miners quitting because of POWER? Doesn't that seem crazy to anyone else? Even before the GUI and ease of use for the coin, back when the rewards were higher, there were MANY more miners, coincidence?

There is a whole idea set forth that with which the change of reward is only one of the first steps. The rest includes making our decentralized market anonymous, and having a built in btc-BURST exchange so that the market can be used with BTC directly, and many other uses. But the change in reward is the first step to KEEP our current miners. I don't believe that the price would be affected all that much by this change, the price is already low. The cap wouldn't be hit for a while now, and the increase in reward wouldn't be all that much until the network grows anyway. The point is looking at the future.

I have already addressed his "threats" many times, I do not take them as threats because if they were truly threats without any other reasoning, why would he do it in public? He's simply pointing out this is a possibility, and since people don't seem to be believing him, he's saying he will prove it if the situation becomes available.

But it seems like instead of accepting a plan with almost everything the community asked for included, it seems that no plan is more favorable to the community. Sucks, but that's what seems to be the case.

Negotiating with terrorists? He's a terrorist now? Because of his name? (which I have always thought /bin/laden was absolutely hilarious.)


10% may be high, easily negotiated. Also, did you not read the part about WHERE the money would go? Certainly not into his hands directly, and not into the hands of a singularly controlled account at all. So to say we're negotiating with a terrorist is pretty far fetched in almost every way.

The fact he pointed out that an attack is possible, and the fact that he will do it to prove it, does not make him a terrorist. It makes him someone who has a very straight forward way of telling everyone of a very serious potential problem. If they don't believe it is a problem, I suppose they can wait and see if it really is or not. Right?


As you say, there are other coins poised to take even more power away from BURST's network.

The main ISSUE here, is that everyone seems to agree something needs to be done, but there hasn't been a single suggestion as to WHAT, or by whom. THIS is the problem, not the fact that the person happens to be someone that the majority may not like all that much.

This is an open source project, everyone can easily look at what has been changed. Not only that, he's agreed to give his tools, miners, pools, etc, upon being accepted. So not only is he going to work for free, he is going to give tools to help the community for free as well.

Basically the only issue people have here, is his ability to prove what he is saying by actually doing it? Or is it that his name is bitladen in this community? If someone gives themselves a name like that, they couldn't possibly ever do anything that isn't terrorist like, right?

give me a break.


I would be extremely excited for an agreement with Haitch and luxe, whom I have a lot of respect for. The issue is that no one else seems to see the need for a change, and/or they haven't submitted a proposal to be looked at.

Anyone here think that I would publicly back bitladen without reason? Anyone here doubt my dedication to BURST? I even said we could implement a 'filter' for his code if people really don't trust him THAT much for whatever reason they have. Even after he releases his tools to the community. So where is the real issue here. He's kinda cocky? Yea, well, that's not something I can do much about. But the thing is, he's not cocky without reason, he's highly intelligent and capable. I prefer those types to be people working WITH me, not against me.

Do you think that if he takes over the development, that he will somehow infect everyone with a virus or something? In open source code? With a filter in place and all? Hell, I would even be willing to post the code for the entire community to review before submitting it to the main git. So what's the real issue?

This isn't a bad idea, however it still leaves us without someone who will be willing to commit to future core development of the coin. Not a bad idea tho, and we might do this regardless to test it out.

Yea, paying for servers isn't a problem for you, for now. It wasn't a problem for me for most of the time either. However, regardless, does it make sense to keep paying for servers for something that isn't being developed, and doesn't even have people willing to come up with a plan to counter bitladen's/mine?

Okay, I do know your thoughts on block reward, and it isn't a bad plan, and could possibly help the situation, but who is going to do this? How will it take place? What are the plans after? These are the things that must be discussed.

Threatening in public as a way to broaden people's thoughts on what is possible, and point out that there ARE some security issues that could be fixed fairly easily by getting a larger network, and simply being the frontman badguy, I still don't see this as a problem. If he is pointing out something that could legitimately happen, and saying he will only do it if it gets to the point that it is possible... but yet also saying... I'm willing to help, I'm willing to give use for the coin, I'm willing to provide core development for FREE, this doesn't sound like a person who is hostile to me. It sounds like someone who has a very direct way of pointing certain things out, yes. But it doesn't sound like someone who is out to destroy the coin. It sounds like someone who knows that there are possibly other people in positions near his own, and maybe these people aren't as up front about the possibilities of the said attack.

let us pretend for a moment, that bitladen isn't the only one with the possibility to do this. Let us also pretend that this person has already plotted multiple accounts. Let us also pretend that this person is totally hostile, and does this kind of stuff simply because they think it is fun, and has no reason behind it other than that. Will this person not attack the network if it is possible for them?

Allowing the network to continue to decrease in size is BAD. The problem, is coming up with a way to reverse the process. You and I both agree that a change in the block reward could do this, we just have different ideas on how much, and how so, and WHO will do it.

I don't immediately say that I'll never support someone who has pointed out an issue with a network, in public, and at the same time suggests a way to fix it, that makes sense.

I have yet to hear anyone say that the plan doesn't make sense. Only that they either think it would be a breach of contract, or that it would be bad (without any real reason.)


If you're totally wanting the coin to survive at all costs, wouldn't those costs include possibly working with someone that you may not necessarily be entirely 100% for in all ways? Does it really matter THAT much that the way he chose to point out that there is a possible security risk, is by being able and willing to exploit it and prove it? You can think of him as a 'pentester' for normal style networks. Right?

I just refuse to take this so called threat as a real threat, not only because it is out in the open, but also because he has suggested a way to fix it, and not only that, volunteered to help implement it.


If he were solely out for his own gain, would he do this? Would he not only want to change the reward structure, but ALSO, implement an extremely good reason for many people to USE the coin? Is this not what many people have said (including you) would bring the 'value' to the coin?


I don't know, I guess I just don't look at him as a negative thing. To me, if he were truly a negative only, he would have plotted anonymously, and continued to increase his power as much as possible, and bide his time, just waiting while the network decreases in size, not coming in to warn people that there is the possibility of this attack, and just attack when he can.

He most certainly wouldn't have offered to help by developing for the coin, and not solely by changing the reward.


If he had come in and suggested he develop for the coin, and given nothing more than "I'll change the reward", I wouldn't have supported that. But he didn't. He came in with many ideas, which I combined with my own, and came up with a structured plan, a future structure suggested, containing almost everything that every community request for change has included. A roadmap with details, a suggestion for changes, and reasoning as to why those changes would do what we think they'll do, structure for the team, and ideas to make things more functional, a way to fund the dev team and give ability for promotion, hiring of other devs, and more...

but all we can do is sit here and say "he's the enemy"? Sorry but I really can't see it that way.

I have had many conversations with him, directly. I can say for sure that he isn't against the coin. He would prefer to implement the changes in BURST as opposed to a clone, because he would like to see the coin succeed. The same reason as me.

The change in block reward is hardly a breach in contract. There was never a contract. Many coins have changed their reward structure, and even you are for a change in that.


So what we're mostly not agreeing on, is the person. To this I still say the same... Who else? Do we even have any way to be able to show a way to FIND someone else? Do you really think that not only are we going to find someone, but they're going to work for free, and not only that, but BUY coins, so that they can work for free, and hope that their work is enough to give enough future value to the coin to make it worthwhile... This seems an almost impossible task.

I am all for the coin having a healthy future, but the amount of other coins out there that are currently much more popular than BURST, do you really think that without some changes, maybe some fundamental ones, that it is going to magically become what we all want it to be?

Hope alone isn't going to accomplish this.

Fighting his attack by delisting the coin from exchanges is suicide. As you said yourself. So are we going to really do this?

I want to know how else we are going to get the network to stop declining.

I'm not suggesting a value increase. I'm suggesting an increase in overall usage and network size. It would benefit all miners, not just bitladen. Thus more would join.

I don't think that you paying out of pocket for all of these things is right either. I think a decentralized project with people willing to set up tools and pools for, should be chipped in from the community. Do you find it fair that you have to pay these things out of your pocket for use of everyone else when they don't have to and this will never bring money back to you in any way?

Do you find it unfair that pools have fees associated? With which they're supposed to be able to pay their operating costs? Isn't the overall fee essentially the same idea but just to keep the overall coin being developed instead?

I think also that I did the most honorable thing and converted my pool fee to an asset, and I even run a 30TB miner for the asset as well, this asset is solely for the benefit of the community, and I have thus far not made a profit at all from it. I am not complaining about this, but I'm saying it isn't sustainable forever unless there's growth in one way or another, and the only way to keep the current model working, is by immense growth, which hasn't been happening.

I just have yet to see another proposed idea that makes more overall sense. It solves the issue of the network decrease, it solves the issue of the usage of the coin (which I know most people haven't seen yet, but they will soon when I edit my paper) and it solves the issue of the growth not matching up with the decline in reward and thus causing overall issues we're seeing now.

I don't know what else can be done, but I'm ready to hear other suggestions, unless you believe that everything is perfectly fine the way it is. I for one see the decline in all of the important things, as an issue. There have been no other whole suggestions that would be able to solve these issues.

Regardless of the person doing it, it is an open source project, and we could even implement a review system of the code before it is posted to the main git, or whatever, if trust of the developer is really the issue.

Being an open source project, it is easily reviewed to see if there are things going on that aren't what are said.

I just don't see the other options we have here? Unless you think everything is fine with the things that have been going on lately, and there's no issue here at all, what exactly should we do?

I don't take these as threats, and I also think that if he's doing it in public, it is to bring awareness. If someone truly wanted to do this to simply attack the coin, why would they talk about it openly? I think he has an interesting way of telling us that the coin is great, and that he doesn't want it to go under, but it will if we don't make changes. I guess it is about interpretation. But I still say, then WHO? Who will do this? Can do it? I don't even know where to start looking for someone to take over a project of this magnitude. Do you? I welcome suggestions here absolutely.

Okay, then what do we do to keep miners from walking off. Even running my pool is costing me out of pocket. Is this something that can continue forever? Also, like bitladen said, he's not the entire network, this would benefit everyone the same. Even the holders, because I truly believe it would make the coin immensely more popular. Miners are the foundation, bring them, give use to the coin, and the rest follows. Losing miners, and having things cost more than they are making, is bad.

The tax is up for discussion, but you yourself should see how much willingness there is to donate to a project that people call innovative and seemingly want to hold forever, and without these donations, we are expected to come up with the money for promotion, etc from our own pockets? I don't see how this is more fair.


Definitely, everyone join the chat, look forward to seeing you all there.

I appreciate the opinions Haitch, and you know I respect you greatly, but I would also like to see some counter-suggestions and something we could put into play ASAP. Waiting around for the original dev to return I just don't think is a viable option, do you?