[ANN][BURST] Burst | Efficient HDD Mining | New 1.2.3 Fork block 92000

[seasonw]

Is there anyone in here that would be willing to 'authenticate' that I own the address BURST-SDHJ-Z6DP-YEWT-G47AZ?

I can send a message or a bit of burst to someone. I'm currently trying to get my old account back which was hacked and someone needs to vouch that I own the above address as the people I'm talking to refuse to download a Burst wallet.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=991008

As long as you send a message unencrypted the message will be viewable on the block explorer at burstcoin.eu. send the message anywhere and link them to that transaction on that block explorer

It is a good idea without someone to download a burst wallet... Anyway, I have help you to 'authenticate' your address ownership at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=991008. Hope you will get back your account soon 

Did you learn from the lesson? This lesson tells you that whichever altcoin you like, you must have bitcoin, especially in bitcointalk.org... LOL 

[Irontiga]

Dunno if this is right...but i think this is the blocks mined distribution for the past 2520 blocks.....

Nice!  Any chance there is a live version of that graph?

That's what i was making....just sent it here to check that no one thought it was way off....

I'll update https://block.burstcoin.info with it in a few minutes....just need to get a couple things done...

[Elmit]

Dunno if this is right...but i think this is the blocks mined distribution for the past 2520 blocks.....

Nice!  Any chance there is a live version of that graph?

That's what i was making....just sent it here to check that no one thought it was way off....

I'll update https://block.burstcoin.info with it in a few minutes....just need to get a couple things done...

Looks good. In FF the color explanation is just over the text Burst price by exchanges.
The difference is hard to see, maybe an offset of 100 would show it better.

Good to see that bobafett is at rank 4. Good job!!!

[mczarnek]

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=982957.0

For 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.

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake

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 Work

Assume 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-size

It'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.

Went through and edited the numbers, better?

[Irontiga]

Dunno if this is right...but i think this is the blocks mined distribution for the past 2520 blocks.....

Nice!  Any chance there is a live version of that graph?

That's what i was making....just sent it here to check that no one thought it was way off....

I'll update https://block.burstcoin.info with it in a few minutes....just need to get a couple things done...

Looks good. In FF the color explanation is just over the text Burst price by exchanges.
The difference is hard to see, maybe an offset of 100 would show it better.

Good to see that bobafett is at rank 4. Good job!!!

How small is ur screen? (res)

[Elmit]

two times 1920x1080 side on side ;-)

[Irontiga]

Dunno if this is right...but i think this is the blocks mined distribution for the past 2520 blocks.....

Nice!  Any chance there is a live version of that graph?

That's what i was making....just sent it here to check that no one thought it was way off....

I'll update https://block.burstcoin.info with it in a few minutes....just need to get a couple things done...

Looks good. In FF the color explanation is just over the text Burst price by exchanges.
The difference is hard to see, maybe an offset of 100 would show it better.

Good to see that bobafett is at rank 4. Good job!!!

How small is ur screen? (res)

There we go....done
https://block.burstcoin.info

...and one of the charts are stuffed up....lets fix that....

[Elmit]

0.127% per day:

[bobafett]

...
try the webwallet from www.burstcoin.de

API   burstcoin.de:8125  ?

https://burstwallet.for-better.biz:8125

had to put it on a different server, because burstcoin.de is hostet by a to small package.

Who is:
Marco Feindler
michael martin GmbH & Co.KG

Can we trust them?

That is bobafett

Ok, I trust him ;-)

I get "You have not typed the passphrase correctly, please try again!"  ?

Error is now fixed. Also the AT works now.

Here are the links, also available at burstcoin.de

https://burstwallet.for-better.biz:8125/
https://burstwallet.for-better.biz:8125/atlotteries.html
https://burstwallet.for-better.biz:8125/atcrowdfund.html

Still a few Coins to go in my CF for Burstcoin.de.  I investet now about 60 hours for Burstcoin.de and the Web Wallet until now. Everybody who wants to use it, please follow the atcrowdfund link and spend some burst to keep the site and the webwallet up!

Also only 760 Blocks until the CF ends. Hurry up guys

And there are no excuses anymore, your donation is only 2 klicks away!!!!  

[Elmit]

I am so happy, each time I get paid from    burstcoin.io BCPT (Asset payments)

Thanks!!!

[hvidgaard]

you can only announce a nonce for a account id. all wallets then verify the received nonce by calculating the deadline for it.
the only way to "play" with the blockchain is to ddos the miner wallets by massive nonce submission to the blockchain.
the result of this may be that many mining wallets simply freeze up and the tb mining with it wont get fresh blocks.
i am not aware how the automatic ddos protection works and how fast bad ips would get blacklisted.
this attack vector may have happened before (sorry i cannot proof) because after not finding a block for several hours i directly found blocks as usual after a wallet restart and fresh peers. i have'nt traced this down to its origin but the watched effect looked suspicious.
lately the diff went too high to see this effect directly anymore so i stoped a further investigation.

to be able to premine blocks you require to know the blockheight and the resulting gensig of the winner.
simply said the gensig is based on who found the block combined with the height. therefore there is no way to optimize stored plots for certain gensigs because they alter even for the same miner for a different blockheight.
the only statistically based optimization i could imagine would be to only store nonces which do not contain all scoops.
statistically if you would store nonces containing only 12 scoops your plots may be used for 1 block a day (statistically).
for this one block a day each tb plotted this way equals 360tb. the tricky part starts when you think of load distribution. but maybe this attempt may be used for vps approaches or third generation pools.  

It's simpler than that. If I get a block of say < 500s, then I can assume that it's going to win, and see what my next deadline would be. It's probably not going to be anything useful, but if it is, say a sub 20s block, announcing it fast is key. If the miner is still scanning and it see an accepted deadline it will just move on, even though you might have a better deadline somewhere you haven't read yet.

[hvidgaard]

It's more about the fact that he has the same exact deadline as the last block AND it happened within the first 5s of the new block.

I investigated a bit, because I saw the same thing with block 77885 and 77886. It turns out that Blagos miner is showing some false information, because the blockchain does not show that those blocks was mined by the same address. I don't where the bug is, it could be that the info server has not updated, so the miner is reading the old information. I have set the info server to be the same address as the wallet, so the miner will read the information from the same place - that should take care of this.

[bobafett]

Update and News: www.burstcoin.de

>> New Feature: German Soloming Guide for Linux is now available.

------
Help me to keep up the page and enhance the information for the german community. Only! 64k to go in the Crowfund (now at 85%). Please do some donations!!!!

[Hubus]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=731923.msg10783246#msg10783246

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work

Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.

Thank you, I really like those comparisons  ! I quoted it into my thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982957.msg10799602#msg10799602

[Hubus]

i think info addr should be a ip adress or a dns name?!

Seems to work now, thank you!

Hello, sorry, did not have time to test further. Now I have different error messages:

connect function failed with error: 10060

 

[mczarnek]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=731923.msg10783246#msg10783246

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work

Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.

Thank you, I really like those comparisons  ! I quoted it into my thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982957.msg10799602#msg10799602

Thanks hubus!!

Would you mind removing this post? Based on bad numbers and I went back and rewrote it(version you have posted above it) 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982957.msg10799632#msg10799632

[seasonw]

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=982957.0

For 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.

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake

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 Work

Assume 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-size

It'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.

Awesome comparison... Wondering when will POC2 release?

[FakeAccount]

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=982957.0

For 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.

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake

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 Work

Assume 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-size

It'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.

13 X is nothing to write home about.  13000x would be!  130x would be somewhat interesting. it's not groundbreaking technology.  this comparison isn't that useful, POC has other aspects over POW that are more interesting.
13x means that POW will get better w.r.t. energy usage as ASIC chips get smaller.  POW won't because there's no control over HDD.  SSD will give it another leap since they use less energy over spinners.  but again, when ssd completely replaced spinners POW chips will be much smaller and more energy efficient anyway.
POC vs POW in terms of energy usage is not a "winning" comparison.

[Merick]

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=982957.0

For 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.

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake

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 Work

Assume 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-size

It'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.

13 X is nothing to write home about.  13000x would be!  130x would be somewhat interesting. it's not groundbreaking technology.  this comparison isn't that useful, POC has other aspects over POW that are more interesting.
13x means that POW will get better w.r.t. energy usage as ASIC chips get smaller.  POW won't because there's no control over HDD.  SSD will give it another leap since they use less energy over spinners.  but again, when ssd completely replaced spinners POW chips will be much smaller and more energy efficient anyway.
POC vs POW in terms of energy usage is not a "winning" comparison.

" and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts"

What PC uses 300 watts of power?

An I7 running 100% will only pull roughly 90watts (CPU).  POC only has the CPU at 100% for roughly 1-2min MAX per block.  During block resting time the PC only pulls 50-75 watts.  The only time a PC will ever pull 300+watts is if it has GPU's crunching away.  The entire comparison is based on a PC pulling 300watts, which is a nice number to talk about, but not even close to reality.

This number can be lowered even further by using CPU's that pull less power and are suited for a POC rig.

It's a nice comparison and full of detail, but the 300W assumption I think hurts the data.

[Irontiga]

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=982957.0

For 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.

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake

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 Work

Assume 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-size

It'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.

13 X is nothing to write home about.  13000x would be!  130x would be somewhat interesting. it's not groundbreaking technology.  this comparison isn't that useful, POC has other aspects over POW that are more interesting.
13x means that POW will get better w.r.t. energy usage as ASIC chips get smaller.  POW won't because there's no control over HDD.  SSD will give it another leap since they use less energy over spinners.  but again, when ssd completely replaced spinners POW chips will be much smaller and more energy efficient anyway.
POC vs POW in terms of energy usage is not a "winning" comparison.

" and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts"

What PC uses 300 watts of power?

An I7 running 100% will only pull roughly 90watts (CPU).  POC only has the CPU at 100% for roughly 1-2min MAX per block.  During block resting time the PC only pulls 50-75 watts.  The only time a PC will ever pull 300+watts is if it has GPU's crunching away.  The entire comparison is based on a PC pulling 300watts, which is a nice number to talk about, but not even close to reality.

This number can be lowered even further by using CPU's that pull less power and are suited for a POC rig.

It's a nice comparison and full of detail, but the 300W assumption I think hurts the data.

Yeah..that's is a calculation for a farm....Mobile CPU's(laptop) are way lower power than that, and man, some of the mini pc's for $100 could probably handle 12tb+ on less than 20 watts. Also, the biggest thing for me about Burst is that ANYONE will ALWAYS be able to mine. You can't beat spare hdd space. Also, low price won't stop miners, which then won't make 51% attack easier.