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

[BurstIncomeAsset]

i dont wanna say this but pm me or messeage me if you know any use for my &TB besides burst coin some other HDD coin this burst its going to less then 30 satoshis i belive and to have like 18.000 satoshis per mining per day its fewble

But you dont mine satoshis, you mine BURST.

So you can hold your BURST until the price goes higher, no need to dump at 18sat/day price. Wait a few weeks and it will be more, or invest it in the 2 best assets of BURST:  ByteEnt and Income.

Woah i Havn't kept up with the market, the miners sell pressure pushed this down to 18?

Well obviously the lower the price the lower the mining profit. Burst has a 2 billion total supply and currently we are ~50%, so at worst case the price will go down to 17.5 satoshi, and that is only if until then we do nothing, which is absurd.

We will have tons of new investments and joiners until then. My asset alone generates about 1-2% daily in bitcoin, I don't know exactly but in 30 minutes I will publish the daily earning results in the burst forum.

Thats why BURST people should invest in Income & ByteEnt, to suck up inflation and push BURST prices higher instead of holding their coins in their address where the inflation will eat it away and then they will fear-sell too, which is not good for anybody.

So bottom line, invest in BURST assets instead of holding to your coins.

[crowetic]

There's one thing I must say, MINERS ARE IMPORTANT! If we don't make the network big enough, we must worry about things that we wouldn't have to with a larger network.

I still think we need to make BURST more attractive to miners, not less. Sitting doing what's been going on lately is not great, indecision causes nothing to get accomplished.

No matter what you feel of bitladen... He's right about the things he's said, and getting miners and usage for the coin are very important.

I used to believe the model of BURST was perfect, but the more I see things happening and the more I think about it, the more I think it's in great planning, but only in a perfect scenario could it work as intended.

I fear that without changes and attraction of miners, the network will continue to shrink. As we've seen, there are miners quitting due to POWER, which is crazy with a coin that barely uses more power than PoS. This trend cannot continue.

If security is important to anyone, they're going to understand why miners are important.

Even the fact that someone getting 51% at all is possible, should be concerning. The next steps we take to resolve this are critical, what are they?

I want to hear suggestions, then I'll post mine. I know the idea may not be extremely popular, but I challenge anyone to come up with a counter proposal. We will gladly look at all options.

[BurstIncomeAsset]

I want to hear suggestions, then I'll post mine. I know the idea may not be extremely popular, but I challenge anyone to come up with a counter proposal. We will gladly look at all options.

This is my suggestion:



People should invest in BURST assets, to suck up inflation generated by miners. Miners usually dump the coins at very low price, they barely earn any profits and they only push the price further down.

If they were to invest in the BURST assets they would earn considerably more profits, and since their funds are temporarily locked, they cant sell, unless they sell the asset itself too.

This will remove a great burden of sell pressure from the price, and it will go up, then they can sell some of it at higher profit, and in a slower pace, ensuring that the BURST price will have an uptrend.


Also the assets will go up in price too, that will attract further speculators/investors into BURST, so it's a win-win-win situation, and no protocol change is needed!


Also before I forget, the INCOME report is ready of the last 24 hour period, we made +0.10312% returns, and since variance is pretty low, we can expect this ROI every day.

https://burstforum.com/index.php?threads/ann-income-asset-decentralized-referral-empire-based-income.839/page-4#post-6177

I think my asset and BYTEENT, can rescue BURST and make it in the Top 5 of crypto-currencies

[Elmit]

Elmits, bitladens, and bears, oh my 

With friends like these...

You mentioned me? to tell what???

[Elmit]

I was hoping you would then continue the conversation by explaining the 51% attack justification.

I'm sure you don't realize this, but once I 51% attack, with 51% of the hashrate I am getting all the blocks, hence doubling my reward. Of course there's always the possibility that I would cancel transactions as I please, should I chose to. So at that point, you would really have to have complete confidence in me.

With 51% hashrate you would be creating 51% blocks, not all, and you would be getting the same reward per block as everyone else, not double. And you can cancel transactions as much as you like but other 49% hashrate would be including them in blocks. Also, at certain point your mining would be very unprofitable with us buyers still buying more coins than you can mine so, all in all, STFU.

Not to my understanding. The majority (51%) decides, who gets and who don't. Or said with other words, 51% decide who is the lawful BURSTcoin blockchain. The entries in the 49% or less, will simple seen as bogus. With that said, the 49% or less mined Bursts would be not accepted, and so the 51% side will get ALL coins allocated for this time period (including the 49%).

You understanding is insuffiscient for us to continue with debate.

I would be interested in your opinion, can you please?

[Elmit]

There's one thing I must say, MINERS ARE IMPORTANT! If we don't make the network big enough, we must worry about things that we wouldn't have to with a larger network.

I still think we need to make BURST more attractive to miners, not less. Sitting doing what's been going on lately is not great, indecision causes nothing to get accomplished.

No matter what you feel of bitladen... He's right about the things he's said, and getting miners and usage for the coin are very important.

I used to believe the model of BURST was perfect, but the more I see things happening and the more I think about it, the more I think it's in great planning, but only in a perfect scenario could it work as intended.

I fear that without changes and attraction of miners, the network will continue to shrink. As we've seen, there are miners quitting due to POWER, which is crazy with a coin that barely uses more power than PoS. This trend cannot continue.

If security is important to anyone, they're going to understand why miners are important.

Even the fact that someone getting 51% at all is possible, should be concerning. The next steps we take to resolve this are critical, what are they?

I want to hear suggestions, then I'll post mine. I know the idea may not be extremely popular, but I challenge anyone to come up with a counter proposal. We will gladly look at all options.

Now that we got a basic, what are the next step(s)? Waiting?

[bitladen]

With 51% hashrate you would be creating 51% blocks, not all, and you would be getting the same reward per block as everyone else, not double. And you can cancel transactions as much as you like but other 49% hashrate would be including them in blocks. Also, at certain point your mining would be very unprofitable with us buyers still buying more coins than you can mine so, all in all, STFU.

How about you google 51% attack before you open your mouth?
After you google it, you will see that it is EXACTLY as I say it is.
If you are smart enough (which btw I bet you're not), you could even test it on the testnet.

This thread is full of imbeciles like yourself.Not all of the users. But most of them.
I will no longer reply to idiotic comments  (comments that are proven wrong).
Instead I caution everyone to do research and not take everything said here for granted.
You cannot determine if a post is correct simply by the fact that is to your liking.

[pinballdude]

There's one thing I must say, MINERS ARE IMPORTANT! If we don't make the network big enough, we must worry about things that we wouldn't have to with a larger network.

I still think we need to make BURST more attractive to miners, not less. Sitting doing what's been going on lately is not great, indecision causes nothing to get accomplished.

No matter what you feel of bitladen... He's right about the things he's said, and getting miners and usage for the coin are very important.

I used to believe the model of BURST was perfect, but the more I see things happening and the more I think about it, the more I think it's in great planning, but only in a perfect scenario could it work as intended.

I fear that without changes and attraction of miners, the network will continue to shrink. As we've seen, there are miners quitting due to POWER, which is crazy with a coin that barely uses more power than PoS. This trend cannot continue.

If security is important to anyone, they're going to understand why miners are important.

Even the fact that someone getting 51% at all is possible, should be concerning. The next steps we take to resolve this are critical, what are they?

I want to hear suggestions, then I'll post mine. I know the idea may not be extremely popular, but I challenge anyone to come up with a counter proposal. We will gladly look at all options.

Miners get paid a fixed number of burst each day, that pool is divided by all miners.  The amount of total hardware used to mine wil almost solely depend on what the current and projected price of BURST is.

The price of burst will not go up because we have more miners. It will go up if you can buy stuff with burst, or if you can store value in burst, or if you can register contracts or ownership or the like with burst, or if you can store files with burst or any other imaginative use we can think up.

What we need is products and solutions, aimed at the potential users of burst.  And people to concieve and produce and market and perhaps finance those products.

For instance, if a webshop owner would like to add pay with burst to his off the shelf webshop, it should be easy and documented how he should go about to do that.  If a cafe owner would like to have a barcode reading tablet app that recieved burst, and a cafe customer would like a barcode scanning and burst sending phone wallet, like bitcoin wallet - they should be able to go to a website and easily download the needed programs and get set up.

You could also scan the web for products already using bitcoin and at least one other altcoin, and improve on that product so it also can accept / pay / whatever with BURST.  Piggybagging on NXT products is probably relatively easy, but as burst might be seen as a close competitor to NXT we must try to emhasize synergy opportunities.

almost nobody is using burst right now, there is a huge market out there, but someone has to figure out the products and services needed, and code up solutions.

If burst price go up factor N , then we will probably atract so much more petabytes that the payoff per petabyte stays relatively constant, it's probably close to 1 to 1.  Burst halves in price - network size will begin working down towards half what it was before... if burst quadruples in price, network size will start growing until it also has quadrupled.  As harddisc prices go down, network size will go bigger, as the balance is (disregarding electricity) price-per-terabyte = value_of_burst_recieved_by_mining_one_terabyte

if the burst price is low and the network size is low too, nobody will bother spending more than burst total value to do an 51% attack, cause in the best case they just get all the burst, but if that is only worth 100K usd, then no professional it criminal will find it worth a few months of work, as well as a lot of equipment rental to get at those money.

If burst price go up 1000 times, the payoff of an attack will be 100 million usd, and then you will have criminals willing to spend a few million to try and get at some of those burst, but on the other hand, the miners will also have 1000 times more disk space building the chain, so the criminals have a much harder problem to solve.

I can only see one way forward, that is to keep burst parameters as they are, and build solutions for the rest of the world, so they are attracted to USE burst.  then the price go up, and then the miners will come all by themselves.

If someone have a set of initial parameters that is way better than what burst has currently, they should fork the software, and start a new coin with these parameters. I would welcome such a move, especially if the two coins could share some code, such that they would not have to reinvent miners and pool and all.  However it is my quite firm belief that burst already has one of the very best set of parameters of all the altcoins out there. BURST can be used as store of value, which is a problem soon to be found in many real currencies and already found in many altcoins.

If burst loses 50% of its value and the network size does not move to a trend toward a drop of 50% then that would in fact be a sign that something is wrong with the incentive structure. It might also mean the network size will not rise if burst rises in value, and it is quite important that the network size do that.

[BurstIncomeAsset]

Now that we got a basic, what are the next step(s)? Waiting?

As pointed out in previous post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=731923.msg12356011#msg12356011


We need people to invest in BURST assets, and by that they will push BURST price up too.

Now this can be 2 type:

• External: new investors from outside interested in BURST or it's assets
• Internal: miners instead of dumping BURST after mining at horrible prices, they invest in in BURST assets to earn more

FIRST STEP IS FOR EVERY BURST ASSET MANAGER TO LIST THEIR ASSETS IN THE SECURITIES BOARD:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=78.0

[Irontiga]

Miners get paid a fixed number of burst each day, that pool is divided by all miners.  The amount of total hardware used to mine wil almost solely depend on what the current and projected price of BURST is.

The price of burst will not go up because we have more miners. It will go up if you can buy stuff with burst, or if you can store value in burst, or if you can register contracts or ownership or the like with burst, or if you can store files with burst or any other imaginative use we can think up.

What we need is products and solutions, aimed at the potential users of burst.  And people to concieve and produce and market and perhaps finance those products.

For instance, if a webshop owner would like to add pay with burst to his off the shelf webshop, it should be easy and documented how he should go about to do that.  If a cafe owner would like to have a barcode reading tablet app that recieved burst, and a cafe customer would like a barcode scanning and burst sending phone wallet, like bitcoin wallet - they should be able to go to a website and easily download the needed programs and get set up.

You could also scan the web for products already using bitcoin and at least one other altcoin, and improve on that product so it also can accept / pay / whatever with BURST.  Piggybagging on NXT products is probably relatively easy, but as burst might be seen as a close competitor to NXT we must try to emhasize synergy opportunities.

almost nobody is using burst right now, there is a huge market out there, but someone has to figure out the products and services needed, and code up solutions.

If burst price go up factor N , then we will probably atract so much more petabytes that the payoff per petabyte stays relatively constant, it's probably close to 1 to 1.  Burst halves in price - network size will begin working down towards half what it was before... if burst quadruples in price, network size will start growing until it also has quadrupled.  As harddisc prices go down, network size will go bigger, as the balance is (disregarding electricity) price-per-terabyte = value_of_burst_recieved_by_mining_one_terabyte

if the burst price is low and the network size is low too, nobody will bother spending more than burst total value to do an 51% attack, cause in the best case they just get all the burst, but if that is only worth 100K usd, then no professional it criminal will find it worth a few months of work, as well as a lot of equipment rental to get at those money.

If burst price go up 1000 times, the payoff of an attack will be 100 million usd, and then you will have criminals willing to spend a few million to try and get at some of those burst, but on the other hand, the miners will also have 1000 times more disk space building the chain, so the criminals have a much harder problem to solve.

I can only see one way forward, that is to keep burst parameters as they are, and build solutions for the rest of the world, so they are attracted to USE burst.  then the price go up, and then the miners will come all by themselves.

If someone have a set of initial parameters that is way better than what burst has currently, they should fork the software, and start a new coin with these parameters. I would welcome such a move, especially if the two coins could share some code, such that they would not have to reinvent miners and pool and all.  However it is my quite firm belief that burst already has one of the very best set of parameters of all the altcoins out there. BURST can be used as store of value, which is a problem soon to be found in many real currencies and already found in many altcoins.

If burst loses 50% of its value and the network size does not move to a trend toward a drop of 50% then that would in fact be a sign that something is wrong with the incentive structure. It might also mean the network size will not rise if burst rises in value, and it is quite important that the network size do that.

This is actually a thing of supply and demand, as demand increases (demand for burst coins), then the quantity supplied will increase (netsize), and so also the opposite and inverse. Nowhere is there any law stating that there is a proportional relationship between the supply and the demand, and so a 50% drop in price doesn't necessarily mean a 50% drop in supply. It does however guarantee that there will be a drop in supply when the price drops.

There are a lot of economic factors involved here, and so you can't look at the past of price vs. netsize, and a lot has changed, including peoples' opinions on whether or not burst has a future. We also have a lot more features now, and the threat of an attack, all which would affect the netsize vs. price relationship.

[bitladen]

There's one thing I must say, MINERS ARE IMPORTANT! If we don't make the network big enough, we must worry about things that we wouldn't have to with a larger network.

I still think we need to make BURST more attractive to miners, not less. Sitting doing what's been going on lately is not great, indecision causes nothing to get accomplished.

No matter what you feel of bitladen... He's right about the things he's said, and getting miners and usage for the coin are very important.

I used to believe the model of BURST was perfect, but the more I see things happening and the more I think about it, the more I think it's in great planning, but only in a perfect scenario could it work as intended.

I fear that without changes and attraction of miners, the network will continue to shrink. As we've seen, there are miners quitting due to POWER, which is crazy with a coin that barely uses more power than PoS. This trend cannot continue.

If security is important to anyone, they're going to understand why miners are important.

Even the fact that someone getting 51% at all is possible, should be concerning. The next steps we take to resolve this are critical, what are they?

I want to hear suggestions, then I'll post mine. I know the idea may not be extremely popular, but I challenge anyone to come up with a counter proposal. We will gladly look at all options.

I take it you refer to my solution, as being the only one proposed thus far.

I request the reward increase and it's proportionality to the hashpower.
Currently, the incentive is to mine here FIRST. As you would get lots of coin for cheap, and so did the first miners. As a result, there is no incentive to mine here one year later (NOW). So even if you did mine here first, and held to the coin, hoping its value will go 100x - which it didn't, it went more like (1/10)x - there will soon not be enough hashpower to guarantee your funds, so you will end up holding ZERO.

This will fix the following.
1. miners will have incentive to mine here ANYTIME - including NOW. And not just at coin launch.
Therefore hashrate will go up, and the holdings will be protected
2. price could go down (but it's going down right now anyway), but as far as miners dumping are concerned, they will not want to dump below their mining costs. Should it go below that, it is safe to say that the holders are dumping. The cheap coin released in the first months of this coin is to blame, or in other words your reward structure. But we will have to see how this unfolds.
BTW, considering current mining costs, does it make any sense that miners could be dumping right now. I get a lot of accusations of this. But do the math. Would it make any sense for me to dump at this price? It is the holders that are dumping, no doubt.
3. volume will go up. which the healthy thing to have.

If you don't like my solution, then you holders should pump the price, it will have the same effects as above. But if you are going to do it, what are you waiting for? What have you been doing for the past year? I find it hard to believe that you ever will, as long as you're the only ones holding this coin.

I am also proposing a 10% dev donation of each block's value. This will go to an address controlled by a trusted member of your community.
Your dev has quit. You do need to develop this coin. This is the perfect solution to this problem.
And it scales well. If the coin becomes popular, it will generate a massive dev fund, that you can use to do all sorts of funky things.

Finally, I am volunteering to make the above mentioned changes to the daemon, should you ever agree to them. And possibly further development and promotion of this coin.  And just to make it clear, I do not require any payment for this.
Yes, I do mine it, and the changes will hopefully cover my costs. But keep in mind, I still only have 25% of the hashpower. 75% of the rewards will go to the rest of the mining community. And it's expected that as a result I will no longer hold 25%, but less. Not due to my capacity shrinking, but due to network size growing.


PS: I would throw in my other projects involving this coin, namely a highly efficient pool, new mining protocol (similar to stratum - even better, i'd have to say), client code for this protocol, and a dcct port for windows.  

That is if you accept my proposal.
Thus far you've only been hostile towards me, you cannot expect any contribution from me before I see an act of good faith on your behalf.

Yes, don't bother to remind me that I'm an egomaniac, who thinks it's superior to everybody else.
As far as this coin is concerned, this is true. 25% of the hashpower says I am. and 51% would make it's all mine. Now if you'd rather be against me, suit yourself.

[BurstIncomeAsset]

Ok I have a hardcore idea listen up:

1) The dev or a more sr. member here starts a crowfunding to collect 2-3 bitcoins
2) The person then starts a sig campaign on this forum for full members & above advertising BURST, the BURST forum, or the BURST site, or all 3 of them
3) Tons of new investors/participants/speculators will be interested, and price will be pumped probably above 100 satoshi
4) Miner reward problem resolves, as now miners will be more profitable, more will come, and 51% attack will be unlikely

What do you think people?


(Otherwise just keep buying BURST & its ASSETS)

[pinballdude]

With 51% hashrate you would be creating 51% blocks, not all, and you would be getting the same reward per block as everyone else, not double. And you can cancel transactions as much as you like but other 49% hashrate would be including them in blocks. Also, at certain point your mining would be very unprofitable with us buyers still buying more coins than you can mine so, all in all, STFU.

How about you google 51% attack before you open your mouth?
After you google it, you will see that it is EXACTLY as I say it is.
If you are smart enough (which btw I bet you're not), you could even test it on the testnet.

This thread is full of imbeciles like yourself.Not all of the users. But most of them.
I will no longer reply to idiotic comments  (comments that are proven wrong).
Instead I caution everyone to do research and not take everything said here for granted.
You cannot determine if a post is correct simply by the fact that is to your liking.

From bitcoin wiki https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

Attacker has a lot of computing power
An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:

Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control. This has the potential to double-spend transactions that previously had already been seen in the block chain.
Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks
The attacker can't:

Reverse other people's transactions
Prevent transactions from being sent at all (they'll show as 0/unconfirmed)
Change the number of coins generated per block
Create coins out of thin air
Send coins that never belonged to him
With less than 50%, the same kind of attacks are possible, but with less than 100% rate of success. For example, someone with only 40% of the network computing power can overcome a 6-deep confirmed transaction with a 50% success rate.

It's much more difficult to change historical blocks, and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further back you go. As above, changing historical blocks only allows you to exclude and change the ordering of transactions. It's impossible to change blocks created before the last checkpoint.

Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive. However, if this attack is successfully executed, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the mess created -- any changes the attacker makes might become permanent.

Assuming ( this might not be the case ) that a burstcoin blockchain 51% attack would work about the same way as a bitcoin blockchain 51% attack, all you can do is to double spend your burst, so we would probably have to stop using burst until we make a new wallet that ignores your ip addresses, your burst addresses etc. for a period of time.  Then we'd go on with the chain from just before you attacked, and you will have to replot your devices cause we know what burst address was baked into the plot files used in the attack.  good luck plotting all that disk space again, it's costly in power and time.

we all have a copy of the blockchain on our harddisk as it looked before your attack, when your ips and burst addresses have been "banned" in a new release of mining software, we will start at that latest uncompromized block, and you would have to re-attack using drives plotted to other addresses than the ones you have used previously.  We might not be able to figure all the burst addresses you use, but it will probably be easy enough to figure most of them. Perhaps you have been clever and plotted each TB to a new address, but at least we can take out all the ones you used to generate blocks.

[Elmit]

I am also proposing a 10% dev donation of each block's value. This will go to an address controlled by a trusted member of your community.
Your dev has quit. You do need to develop this coin. This is the perfect solution to this problem.
And it scales well. If the coin becomes popular, it will generate a massive dev fund, that you can use to do all sorts of funky things.

There is a problem, there is no "trusted member". However, BURST has the feature of ESCROW, with that we could manage "trust".

[bitladen]

I am also proposing a 10% dev donation of each block's value. This will go to an address controlled by a trusted member of your community.
Your dev has quit. You do need to develop this coin. This is the perfect solution to this problem.
And it scales well. If the coin becomes popular, it will generate a massive dev fund, that you can use to do all sorts of funky things.

There is a problem, there is no "trusted member". However, BURST has the feature of ESCROW, with that we could manage "trust".

Then a multisig, requiring multiple signatures to release funds. Not sure if burst has the option, will have to check

[bitladen]

From bitcoin wiki https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

Assuming ( this might not be the case ) that a burstcoin blockchain 51% attack would work about the same way as a bitcoin blockchain 51% attack, all you can do is to double spend your burst, so we would probably have to stop using burst until we make a new wallet that ignores your ip addresses, your burst addresses etc. for a period of time.  Then we'd go on with the chain from just before you attacked, and you will have to replot your devices cause we know what burst address was baked into the plot files used in the attack.  good luck plotting all that disk space again, it's costly in power and time.

we all have a copy of the blockchain on our harddisk as it looked before your attack, when your ips and burst addresses have been "banned" in a new release of mining software, we will start at that latest uncompromized block, and you would have to re-attack using drives plotted to other addresses than the ones you have used previously.  We might not be able to figure all the burst addresses you use, but it will probably be easy enough to figure most of them. Perhaps you have been clever and plotted each TB to a new address, but at least we can take out all the ones you used to generate blocks.

You don't fully understand, but you are on the right track.
You understand that in order for the attack to be performed, all blocks are mined by the same miner. Yes? This means that I still have the same hashpower, but the network only accepts my blocks and rejects the other blocks. During such attack it appears that the network hash halved its size, because the other half gets rejected.

Nobody is talking about changing historic blocks.
It's not my intent to double spend either. Though I could, and it would mean you getting BURST suspended from the exchanges. DEATH! I would do such thing only if the rewards become laughably low.

You have no way to "cancel" my blocks. I will have dumped the coin before exchanges update to your "revised" version of the wallet. Thus they can never accept such change, for obvious reasons. Nor would this stop me from receiving my money.

Then I can simply change ip and replot. But then again the exchanges would already be at the impossibilty of accepting your updated wallet.

And there's a small technicality too. Who's gonna do the wallet modifications? Your dev has quit.

And yes, I have done this before.

[Irontiga]

There is a problem, there is no "trusted member". However, BURST has the feature of ESCROW, with that we could manage "trust".

Then a multisig, requiring multiple signatures to release funds. Not sure if burst has the option, will have to check

1) Crowetic is trusted

2) We do have multisig functionality via at's.

[Elmit]

I think we heard now enough of what could happen and how it could be done.

Let's focus on how to implement solutions and bring up the coin again. Let's MOVE and not just talk.
I do hope that any solution will not require a re-plotting. Since BinLaden has the most plots I guess he will not like that either ;-)

Does Crow's document add anything useful to this situation?

[pinballdude]

There's one thing I must say, MINERS ARE IMPORTANT! If we don't make the network big enough, we must worry about things that we wouldn't have to with a larger network.

I still think we need to make BURST more attractive to miners, not less. Sitting doing what's been going on lately is not great, indecision causes nothing to get accomplished.

No matter what you feel of bitladen... He's right about the things he's said, and getting miners and usage for the coin are very important.

I used to believe the model of BURST was perfect, but the more I see things happening and the more I think about it, the more I think it's in great planning, but only in a perfect scenario could it work as intended.

I fear that without changes and attraction of miners, the network will continue to shrink. As we've seen, there are miners quitting due to POWER, which is crazy with a coin that barely uses more power than PoS. This trend cannot continue.

If security is important to anyone, they're going to understand why miners are important.

Even the fact that someone getting 51% at all is possible, should be concerning. The next steps we take to resolve this are critical, what are they?

I want to hear suggestions, then I'll post mine. I know the idea may not be extremely popular, but I challenge anyone to come up with a counter proposal. We will gladly look at all options.

I take it you refer to my solution, as being the only one proposed thus far.

I request the reward increase and it's proportionality to the hashpower.
Currently, the incentive is to mine here FIRST. As you would get lots of coin for cheap, and so did the first miners. As a result, there is no incentive to mine here one year later (NOW). So even if you did mine here first, and held to the coin, hoping its value will go 100x - which it didn't, it went more like (1/10)x - there will soon not be enough hashpower to guarantee your funds, so you will end up holding ZERO.

This will fix the following.
1. miners will have incentive to mine here ANYTIME - including NOW. And not just at coin launch.
Therefore hashrate will go up, and the holdings will be protected
2. price could go down (but it's going down right now anyway), but as far as miners dumping are concerned, they will not want to dump below their mining costs. Should it go below that, it is safe to say that the holders are dumping. The cheap coin released in the first months of this coin is to blame, or in other words your reward structure. But we will have to see how this unfolds.
BTW, considering current mining costs, does it make any sense that miners could be dumping right now. I get a lot of accusations of this. But do the math. Would it make any sense for me to dump at this price? It is the holders that are dumping, no doubt.
3. volume will go up. which the healthy thing to have.

If you don't like my solution, then you holders should pump the price, it will have the same effects as above. But if you are going to do it, what are you waiting for? What have you been doing for the past year? I find it hard to believe that you ever will, as long as you're the only ones holding this coin.

I am also proposing a 10% dev donation of each block's value. This will go to an address controlled by a trusted member of your community.
Your dev has quit. You do need to develop this coin. This is the perfect solution to this problem.
And it scales well. If the coin becomes popular, it will generate a massive dev fund, that you can use to do all sorts of funky things.

Finally, I am volunteering to make the above mentioned changes to the daemon, should you ever agree to them. And possibly further development and promotion of this coin.  And just to make it clear, I do not require any payment for this.
Yes, I do mine it, and the changes will hopefully cover my costs. But keep in mind, I still only have 25% of the hashpower. 75% of the rewards will go to the rest of the mining community. And it's expected that as a result I will no longer hold 25%, but less. Not due to my capacity shrinking, but due to network size growing.


PS: I would throw in my other projects involving this coin, namely a highly efficient pool, new mining protocol (similar to stratum - even better, i'd have to say), client code for this protocol, and a dcct port for windows.  

That is if you accept my proposal.
Thus far you've only been hostile towards me, you cannot expect any contribution from me before I see an act of good faith on your behalf.

Yes, don't bother to remind me that I'm an egomaniac, who thinks it's superior to everybody else.
As far as this coin is concerned, this is true. 25% of the hashpower says I am. and 51% would make it's all mine. Now if you'd rather be against me, suit yourself.

reg. miners :

The early miners ( i'm not one of the earliest ) they took on a lot more risk that you ever did, and they have been paid for that. BURST was new and flaky and just setting up mining and plotting was a headache, they built the docs, the pools and the community.. they crashed their operating systems, they paved the way for we that followed. They have taken lots of risk and put in a lot of work. I don't think it is the least bit fair to steal their burst and give them some other kind of burst in  replacement. If you want another incentive plan, create a new burst with your modifications and let people willingly shift to that one, forcing a changed coin on the existing community is not fair imo, it destroys all trust in you. If you don't belive in keeping promises, we can only deal with you out of fear.

reg. developer fund :

I am in principle for some kind of organization that funds development and is paid for by people - but it has to be voluntary,  and the owners of BURST never agreed that they should pay taxes to a development fund. It would be a major change in the state of affairs to enforce a fee per transaction that go to a development fund.

Also, a development fund where the usage of funds is not decentralized, needs someone in control to make spending decisions. The moment you set that up, you'll have government goons and criminals trying to get at the guys in control and either try to take over the control, or to steal the control. Does not work very well. Crypto currencies is all about decentralized solutions where you cannot attack a centralized point of failure or gain control by compromizing a centralized server.


However, you could set up a virtual company that control a BURST address, that people can voluntarily send fees to, and that company could be centralized controlled and could pay for development in the BURST recieved from donations. You could even add to the wallets, a field where 1 BURST is per default sent to the development fund per transaction, but the end user should have an easy way of opting out , otherwise it's not voluntary, it's stealing, especially if there are users out there who disagree with the new tax.  The setup might be expanded so that it was possible to register a fund on the chain, and so that the user could select what fund (or none) is being donated to, when doing transactions.  a fund setup could be recieving BURST address, name, short description, website url or whatever.  the user choice could then be a list of names, with the most popular fund on top.


But don't force change onto the community using a 51% attack. Or be prepared to have to fend off a lot of people who believe you are a thief and a criminal, especially if you ever change a transaction. With anyone in control, burst degenerates to a normal centralized bank. The one in control will have governments and thugs all trying to go come steal his control away, to tax him, to claim protection money, whatever.... Perhaps even users who find that the attack is a violation of NAP and thus find it morally okay to come after you, will start to hunt you down. You will not be safe.  ( this is not a threat, i would not come after you, i'd just start an originalBURST starting from somewhere on the chain before the attack). My money would then be in both BURST and originalBURST but originalBURST would probably have a list of burst addresses banned for generating blocks due to involvment in the 51% attack.

[bitladen]

But don't force change onto the community using a 51% attack. Or be prepared to have to fend off a lot of people who believe you are a thief and a criminal, especially if you ever change a transaction. With anyone in control, burst degenerates to a normal centralized bank. The one in control will have governments and thugs all trying to go come steal his control away, to tax him, to claim protection money, whatever.... Perhaps even users who find that the attack is a violation of NAP and thus find it morally okay to come after you, will start to hunt you down. You will not be safe.  ( this is not a threat, i would not come after you, i'd just start an originalBURST starting from somewhere on the chain before the attack). My money would then be in both BURST and originalBURST but originalBURST would probably have a list of burst addresses banned for generating blocks due to involvment in the 51% attack.

That's what you get for not having hashpower. Don't blaim me, I'm just the messenger. Yet, these are the rules of the cryptogame. As such you should encourage decentralized hashpower. Which requires financial incentive.

You have to understand that the whole security of your funds relies on the hashpower. This is in the whitepaper of bitcoin. Not something I'm making up.

P.S. I just realized what you said. HAHAHA. haven't they already "hunted" me down all this time? I can assure you that my identity is very well concealed. But don't take my word for it, give it a try, uncover me. It's fun though, you are technically threatening authority intervention on a DECENTRALIZED currency. You have to see the irony in this. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the crypto community opposes - not necessarily illegally - but opposes the authorities.