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

[bitladen]

i would prefer a clone with the new system. this could be done fast and easily and we can try this. if it works, fine, if not, then nothing is lost.

and if no clone is coming and who exactly is the plan how to do this and when will the change be made?

I read tons of words here, but no exact plan.....

In my opinion, that changes can be good or not, we will see.... nobody knows the future.

Obviously we would prefer to take advantage of BURST's exposure, rather than compete with it. But if we can't manage that, once burst crashes, we will see clones.

Then again, I understand you would support a clone. Anybody else? Let's put this on the table.

[BurstIncomeAsset]

Ok the marketplace modification could change something but we definitely need more promotion. In fact I believe right now we need more investors that would hold for the long term.

I see that we are on bittrex, perhaps if you guys know any bittrex traders who would pick this up. There are many whales that do pickup smaller altcoins. That would be a good boost of 20-30 bitcoins to us.

Then we can perhaps become listed in other exchanges to get more investors. As soon as the new investors would join, the miners would like that and start uppgrading , and the network would become stable again.

We probably need to open a thread in the ALTCOIN DISCUSSION sector, or in the PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, to gather some volunteers that can help you with your struggles crowetic.

So my view is this:

1) new volunteers to help work on this/ promote / marketing etc
2) more long term investors , or traders to add liquidity
3) the marketplace patch
4) signature campaign
5) more assets, that would give intrinsic value to BURST

my apologies, you actually don't sound like an idiot. it's just mostly everybody on this thread does. so it kinda grew into a habbit.

your points do have value, but I see some technical problems with them

1) ?? I think we kind of ran out of volunteers. my view is that being a coin, we should consider paying for stuff
2) that's actually possible, if the price drops to maybe 10 sat. but then you have a mining problem, more miners would quit at that price leaving the network wide open to 51% attacks. Yes I know nobody usually cares about network security, but I do have 2PB, I will demonstrate 51% as soon as it becomes possible for me.
3) alright... but i still think it needs a financial incentive.  i for one do not believe in volunteering
4) i have doubts about about the effectiveness. this kind of approach is what burst always had since beginning, to no effect.
5) yes, but once again, keep in mind there needs to be a financial incentive

Now I really have to go, I wasn't kidding. But I wanted to apologize.

Regards

PS: I do have 30 btc, and at this price there's no way I'm buying, I actually pulled the 4.35 buy I had @22 (or around there, don't remember the exact value). I'm not exactly a whale. Then again you expecting a whale to buy, implies deceit. Which kinda implies luck. Which is why I'm not a fan of deceitful tactics.

1. On this thread maybe, but just opening another thread in the altcoin discussion, or project development section, to get more volunteer developers, marketers, or other important positions could work. It doesn't cost anything, so it is no reason not to try.

2. Not really, there are many whales in bitrex, doing lower volume coins than BURST with 100 bitcoins or more. Somebody just needs to convince them to temporarily invest in BURST, and if things turn out better they win,we win, so its win for all of us.

3. Marketplace is a marketplace, it is if the people are interested in it, they will use it, so this is kind of a passive result, as it doesn't really depend on the developer team, but mostly on the BURST users to create demand

4. Well again, it doesn't cost anything, so it is no reason not to try it, and amongst more new BURST users, we might find the necessary promoters/programmers/specialists ,etc.. (take it as a BURST recruitment event)

5. Of course, I think the ASSETS are BURST's main magnet, so if done correctly, and with very charming assets/investment options, I really thing we can get many BURST investors , that both help move the BURST price up, and the respective assets. Now we currently have 3-4 assets that are worth investing in , but if new people can come up with new asset ideas, then it can definitely help.

The financial incentive is in the investment itself, if it turns out good, then the asset creator can get enough funding to start his business, and the investors can get good returns subsequently.

There is nothing deceitful in this, the job of the investors is to take present risk in expectation of future rewards. Nobody knows what the future of BURST will be but if investors put say 100 BTC in BURST now, they will expect them to return 1000 BTC in the future, in one way or another.

I see really good opportunities in BURST ,and it would be a shame to let it go to waste, just because the price is low and miners quit.

[bitladen]

BurstIncomeAsset, perhaps you would support a clone? There seems to be support from bobaffet and Elmit.

[BurstIncomeAsset]

BurstIncomeAsset, perhaps you would support a clone? There seems to be support from bobaffet and Elmit.

Sorry but no, I got my asset on BURST, and I really want to see BURST succeed.

I personally think that making a BURST clone will only split mining power and investments into half which would be a horrible idea, which we are trying to avoid here.

But sure you can create your BURST clone, it's a free market, and try to compete with BURST. But I don't think that a split would resolve anything, you would face the same problems, and it would be twice worse.

[okae]

a question, is http://burstcoin.biz/ surfbar working fine? because seems like is freezed or something like that, i mean that they didnt pay in the last days, someone know if all is ok with it?

[BurstIncomeAsset]

I think the price is already start to heal @32 satoshi . And the crash it is probably caused by this argument/bickering that is happening on this thread.

If everybody keeps calm and stats buying BURST then we can probably hit the 40 satoshi again. We just need a community effort to do it.

So please keep civil and start buying BURST

[Cobra]

Tiga, we do things differently. I respect your way, and you should respect mine. Don't take it upon yourself to judge. It's not a problem that we disagree, I welcome that, as long as we keep it civilized. Would you say I was uncivilized with you? And as you put it so well, these are idiots, I have no respect for them, and it's my way not to pretend to.

After many comments from various community members are you not able to accept constructive criticism without resorting to verbally attacking individuals?  I respect the fact that you want to see Burst change for the better and that you also have the skills needed to make things happen. The issue is how you are going about it with the threats of "this needs to happen or I am taking Burst down" Burst is the first of it's kind do you really want to burn it to the ground and tarnish the history to prove your point? And you will say "if not nothing would happen and Burst would die". So let it die and create your own. The community was just now notified via crowetic document that the original Burst Dev is not returning, everyone was waiting on him to see if his personal issues would be resolved.

I do agree with the plan that has been presented but more interested in seeing potential uses for Burst so it can have some type of value. Most of the community is probably concerned with your long-term intentions for Burst. You give the impression that the #1 priority is to get rich off of Burst with changes as needed and anything else that happens is secondary. You felt the need to invest a great deal in hardware and now feel Burst owes you. Coins die all of the time, how would it harm you to leave Burst and start your own clone from scratch? You would probably attract many users from here and who knows maybe take the lead away from Burst. You would already have the hardware, keep Burst coins, see what community does without you as you create your own and dump those too. A Win/Win for you.

Respect me and I will respect you.

How can people respect you when your first response is to call someone an imbecile or moron when they have done nothing like that to you? The point that I am making is that regardless of what has been said you could approach things a little differently if you wanted to. If you still do not wish to do that for the good of the community remain as silent as your silent partners and let Crowetic/Tiga be the face of Burst as they have the necessary leadership skills.

[Elmit]

Tiga, we do things differently. I respect your way, and you should respect mine. Don't take it upon yourself to judge. It's not a problem that we disagree, I welcome that, as long as we keep it civilized. Would you say I was uncivilized with you? And as you put it so well, these are idiots, I have no respect for them, and it's my way not to pretend to.

After many comments from various community members are you not able to accept constructive criticism without resorting to verbally attacking individuals?  I respect the fact that you want to see Burst change for the better and that you also have the skills needed to make things happen. The issue is how you are going about it with the threats of "this needs to happen or I am taking Burst down" Burst is the first of it's kind do you really want to burn it to the ground and tarnish the history to prove your point? And you will say "if not nothing would happen and Burst would die". So let it die and create your own. The community was just now notified via crowetic document that the original Burst Dev is not returning, everyone was waiting on him to see if his personal issues would be resolved.

I do agree with the plan that has been presented but more interested in seeing potential uses for Burst so it can have some type of value. Most of the community is probably concerned with your long-term intentions for Burst. You give the impression that the #1 priority is to get rich off of Burst with changes as needed and anything else that happens is secondary. You felt the need to invest a great deal in hardware and now feel Burst owes you. Coins die all of the time, how would it harm you to leave Burst and start your own clone from scratch? You would probably attract many users from here and who knows maybe take the lead away from Burst. You would already have the hardware, keep Burst coins, see what community does without you as you create your own and dump those too. A Win/Win for you.

Respect me and I will respect you.

How can people respect you when your first response is to call someone an imbecile or moron when they have done nothing like that to you? The point that I am making is that regardless of what has been said you could approach things a little differently if you wanted to. If you still do not wish to do that for the good of the community remain as silent as your silent partners and let Crowetic/Tiga be the face of Burst as they have the necessary leadership skills.

I think you should cool down and read again.
BinLaden suggested some changes. He said what would happen if changes will not implemented.
6 months later we see, that his prediction was right. The price gone down, the miners left and so the network size shrinks.
He is mining and gains more and more % of the network, ... reason see above.
With 51% he can decide for the coins whatever he wants. If he does or not does will show the future.
We can prevent letting him 51% by increasing somehow the network size. As long miners are not even get paid the very low power fee, you cannot expect that they will turn on their equipment.
BinLaden suggested some enhancements, but no developer available. He offers to be the developer temporary. Take the offer or leave it. Find somebody else who can do it.
In the meantime he will increase his network share. If the developer are not doing anything, then he will get the 51%.
He was now several times asked to PROOF that he could attack the network. I think that was a command to do so.

So, cry for a couple of more months, seeing the coin going down or do something.

[ivanf]

I fail to see how increasing the reward will bring in more miners. Wouldn't it only worsen the inflation? Is this the plan to kill the coin faster so another fork can be introduced?

Rewriting the core code to get rid of "NXT fork" fame, probably changing the algo to make plotting much much slower so ppl with petabytes of storage won't be able to takeover instantly, releasing user-friendly mining / wallet software right from the start has a better chance of success imho.

[RealBitcoin]

C`mon guys i cant believe nobody added this coin yet to Yobit:

https://yobit.net/en/addcoin/

Guys add the coin to yobit so that I can buy some. I`m waiting here for like 1 month to buy some.

but i cant understand one thing here, why if you want to buy burst, you don't use one of the current exchanges where we are?

Because I dont want to have like 1000 exchange accounts. I am usng Yobit and i would like to buy some BURST ffs.

Please guys add it to yobit, i see you guys need some investors, man there are tons of traders there who would pump the price up to 100 satoshi!!!

Just add it to Yobit and all problems will be solved!!

[kleinstein]

Are we going to "save" the coin, or to destroy it?

I do not see anything criminal to show that the network is voluntary. Criminal would be if he would steal out of your wallet. BinLaden said several times, that the network can be attacked, not necessary by him. However, if you tease him to proof it, he might accept this invitation. THEN you will have to wait a few days till he allows transactions. He also said what we need to do to avoid a possible attack, ...

I feel I have to point out that there is no law that says 51% attacking a cryptocoin is a criminal act.

That's like print counterfeit money, I do not think this is legal in most countries of the world.

[fabula]

I always following burst since day 1!

[crowetic]

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.

[callmejack]

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 have read the paper in detail with the result that i think it describes a new coin.
there are some points i really like and some points about i think they have to be put into a fork.

in fact today burst has absolute nothing except speculative value.
a fact for the suggested unlimited supply is that this saves most assets their asses since you give burst to them and then you can receive more burst back.
for all others this destroys the whole speculative value burst has and we would end up with a worthless twelve month premine period while starting from scatch with a quite huge network.

personally i really like radical approaches since this is the way you can move huge things.
more radical would be to throw the java code away and create a rock solid c integration of the burst protocol.

since  burst already has crosschain transfer functionality a fork could integrate seamlessly and maybe utilize the existing exchange infastructures (if people want to trade between both).
if the fork shows it offers great features people are willing to move regardless of what they may suffer from the changes.
getting value from "old burst" into the "new fork" could be done by generated/integrated ATs which have unlimited code execution supply. the question there is how the exchange rate gets set dynamically.
it would be great if the fork could use the same plots but this would make people mine on both chains and double their capacity virtually.

 

[crowetic]

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 have read the paper in detail with the result that i think it describes a new coin.
there are some points i really like and some points about i think they have to be put into a fork.

in fact today burst has absolute nothing except speculative value.
a fact for the suggested unlimited supply is that this saves most assets their asses since you give burst to them and then you can receive more burst back.
for all others this destroys the whole speculative value burst has and we would end up with a worthless twelve month premine period while starting from scatch with a quite huge network.

personally i really like radical approaches since this is the way you can move huge things.
more radical would be to throw the java code away and create a rock solid c integration of the burst protocol.

since  burst already has crosschain transfer functionality a fork could integrate seamlessly and maybe utilize the existing exchange infastructures (if people want to trade between both).
if the fork shows it offers great features people are willing to move regardless of what they may suffer from the changes.
getting value from "old burst" into the "new fork" could be done by generated/integrated ATs which have unlimited code execution supply. the question there is how the exchange rate gets set dynamically.
it would be great if the fork could use the same plots but this would make people mine on both chains and double their capacity virtually.

 

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.

[pinballdude]

This is actually a thing of supply and demand, as demand increases (demand for burst coins), then the quantity supplied will increase (netsize).

I don't agree, if net size increases there will not be created more burst coins, but the blockchain will be protected by harder to calculate hashes. The individual miner will get less BURST per terabyte over time. The number of BURST coming into existance is fixed, it is about 1 block reward every 4 minutes.  The block reward is reduced by 10% every month as i remember it.

, 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.

i agree.

There are a lot of economic factors involved here, and so you can't look at the past of price vs. netsize,

I agree that both price and network size depend on more factors than just each other. It is an all else being equal situation, all else being equal, higher price will have the effect that more miners will find it a good deal for them to put more terabytes online. So for instance double the price would probably get us double the network size. The miner doing an ROI calculation will see double profits, so he might want to invest double as much money.   Of course all kinds of factors outside price will affect the network size. Price of online storage, other competing usage of terabytes, price of plotting, ease of setting up stuff, internet bandwith and power costs etc. etc.

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.

I agree, the open threat from bitladen to attack the blockchain is probably the reson for a lot of the recent BURST price reduction. If he succeeds we will have a service interruption and we might get taken off exchanges, and they might not bother to put us back in right away.  However he must have quite some cash tied up into those 2TB, and he is earning a very low ROI on it right now at the price he talked BURST down to - so perhaps he gives up at some point and sells his 2TB.  In the meantime i suggest miners to put new diskspace online and make it really costly for bitladen to get to a point where he can attack. I will add 10TB within a month and 16TB each month after that. Bitladen has to add more than that (or other miners have to take more than that offline) if he wants to attack. If it looks like he gets closer to 51% i can add even more space, my cashflow gives me money to buy about 10 8TB disks each month if need be. I could go faster than that, but would have to use saved up funds that was not expected to be used for that purpose.  I suggest anyone adding diskspace to write a post about it here, to discourage bitladen from continuing his attack attempt.

[pinballdude]

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.

The benefit is that bitladen seems to know c to a level that is useful.  A big non-benefit is that the BURST code can pull in enhancments from the NXT project as long as we adapt things a little. If you go to C, you will lose the opportunity to easily bring over enhancements made in NXT.  Also, as it is now, it should be quite easy to lure NXT coders over here, as they will already know a lot about the guts of BURST.  if you use C, you will more likely draw on BTC developers who then have a stepper learning curve, as the software architecture of BURST resembles NXT a lot more than it resembles bitcoin.

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.

Friendly competition is usually good for all involved parties, and especially the customers, i would welcome another PoC coin, although i would not mine and hold if it was infinite, i would mine and sell, as i don't believe in inflating currencies. I think it will crash and burn, making mine-and-dumpers rich. It will mostly be used for transacting , nobody will want to own the new coin as it will spiral down in value per coin, as more and more coins are added.

[crowetic]

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.

[pinballdude]

I fail to see how increasing the reward will bring in more miners. Wouldn't it only worsen the inflation? Is this the plan to kill the coin faster so another fork can be introduced?

Rewriting the core code to get rid of "NXT fork" fame, probably changing the algo to make plotting much much slower so ppl with petabytes of storage won't be able to takeover instantly, releasing user-friendly mining / wallet software right from the start has a better chance of success imho.

I see NXT fork as a plus.  We know that a lot of developers have checked and bugfixed the NXT code, and we piggyback on all their work (except the stuff that burstcoin wrote himself) I would assume that people trust a fork from a successfull coin more than a brand new build from scratch up coin.

[crowetic]

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.

The benefit is that bitladen seems to know c to a level that is useful.  A big non-benefit is that the BURST code can pull in enhancments from the NXT project as long as we adapt things a little. If you go to C, you will lose the opportunity to easily bring over enhancements made in NXT.  Also, as it is now, it should be quite easy to lure NXT coders over here, as they will already know a lot about the guts of BURST.  if you use C, you will more likely draw on BTC developers who then have a stepper learning curve, as the software architecture of BURST resembles NXT a lot more than it resembles bitcoin.

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.

Friendly competition is usually good for all involved parties, and especially the customers, i would welcome another PoC coin, although i would not mine and hold if it was infinite, i would mine and sell, as i don't believe in inflating currencies. I think it will crash and burn, making mine-and-dumpers rich. It will mostly be used for transacting , nobody will want to own the new coin as it will spiral down in value per coin, as more and more coins are added.

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.