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

[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.

 

[1715030933]

1715030933

[1715030933]

1715030933

[1715030933]

1715030933

[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.

[pinballdude]

But the change in reward is the first step to KEEP our current miners. I don't believe that the price would be affected all that much by this change, the price is already low. The cap wouldn't be hit for a while now, and the increase in reward wouldn't be all that much until the network grows anyway. The point is looking at the future.

We will only lose SOME miners, basically, when network size go to half, the remaining miners make double as much BURST each. If 3/4 of the miners go away for some reason, the remaining miners make 4 times as many BURST. If we lose 90% of the miners, the ones remaining make 10 times as much. It will stabilize at some point for sure.

[pinballdude]

The supply being unlimited just means the growth would have to match,

Yes, the growth would have to match.

Nobody wants to own an inflating coin if a non-inflating is available. Nobody that is interesting in keeping their BP at least.

Suppose you need 10% growth a month for the price to hold.  You would need 10% growth  a month just to keep the price.  After 10 months, you have the same.


Suppose the same growth happened to a noninflationary coin,

a holder would earn 10 percent a month for 10 months. that is a profit of factor  (1.10 ^10 )   that is  2.59 times the original value, or 259% gain.

So what will an investor want.  breaking even and dumping miners in the inflationary coin, or 259% gain due to features and marketing increasing coin usage.  
[/quote]


On top of that, the 259% price increase due to growth should more or less automatically lead to 2.59 times larger a network, due to miners making more money.

[BurstIncomeAsset]

I just feel that whatever we do we must keep the community together. I really disagree with forking the coin, that can destabilize everything and people will lose money that way.

So please don't even mention the forking again, or the cloning.


Otherwise , I dont agree with the block reward increase either as it can push the price even lower, but if you say that the network size risk is imminent then very well, it is doable, atleast it fixes things temporarly.


But I still believe that a good marketing is the key here, but perhaps we ran out of time.


Another method would be , that can be done simultaneously with the block reward increase, is for people to buy BURST assets.

I have made my asset free to trade, as in , I wont sell anymore to the BID price, instead the INCOME asset has already a SELL wall put in, so between the wall people can trade my asset freely. Speculators/traders/ investors are welcome into INCOME.

[ANN] Income Asset - Decentralized Referral Empire based Income


Then we got the daily ROI report of INCOME, we had a worse day than before, but given yesterday's ROI we still have a ROI over 0.1%/day

Today's ROI was: +0.09497%

[ANN] Income Asset - Decentralized Referral Empire based Income

So BURST people keep investing in BURST assets!

[crowetic]

The supply being unlimited just means the growth would have to match,

Yes, the growth would have to match.

Nobody wants to own an inflating coin if a non-inflating is available. Nobody that is interesting in keeping their BP at least.

Suppose you need 10% growth a month for the price to hold.  You would need 10% growth  a month just to keep the price.  After 10 months, you have the same.


Suppose the same growth happened to a noninflationary coin,

a holder would earn 10 percent a month for 10 months. that is a profit of factor  (1.10 ^10 )   that is  2.59 times the original value, or 259% gain.

So what will an investor want.  breaking even and dumping miners in the inflationary coin, or 259% gain due to features and marketing increasing coin usage.  



On top of that, the 259% price increase due to growth should more or less automatically lead to 2.59 times larger a network, due to miners making more money.

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

[BurstIncomeAsset]

The supply being unlimited just means the growth would have to match,

Yes, the growth would have to match.

Nobody wants to own an inflating coin if a non-inflating is available. Nobody that is interesting in keeping their BP at least.

Suppose you need 10% growth a month for the price to hold.  You would need 10% growth  a month just to keep the price.  After 10 months, you have the same.


Suppose the same growth happened to a noninflationary coin,

a holder would earn 10 percent a month for 10 months. that is a profit of factor  (1.10 ^10 )   that is  2.59 times the original value, or 259% gain.

So what will an investor want.  breaking even and dumping miners in the inflationary coin, or 259% gain due to features and marketing increasing coin usage.  



On top of that, the 259% price increase due to growth should more or less automatically lead to 2.59 times larger a network, due to miners making more money.

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

Bottom line, people want to make money, if they dont then they are not really interested in the coin.

Both of our assets make money, so I think there is where people should put their money in.

[Irontiga]

Guys, it's really very simple, the idea of block reward being proportional to the network capacity CAN'T work. Imagine if this had been the case with bitcoin....then due to mining equipment becoming cheaper all the time, then the value of bitcoin would ALWAYS go down. This would make it impossible to invest in, and then nobody would mine it anyway. A dead coin before it even starts. It's so obvious that bitladen doesn't give a thing about investors and users, after all, he's just a miner and dumper, why would he care?

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.

What? Netsize will increase as demand for Burst increases, you said so yourself, how can you contradict that now? I didn't say that the amount of Burst being made will increase....

[pinballdude]

Guys, it's really very simple, the idea of block reward being proportional to the network capacity CAN'T work. Imagine if this had been the case with bitcoin....then due to mining equipment becoming cheaper all the time, then the value of bitcoin would ALWAYS go down. This would make it impossible to invest in, and then nobody would mine it anyway. A dead coin before it even starts. It's so obvious that bitladen doesn't give a thing about investors and users, after all, he's just a miner and dumper, why would he care?

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.

What? Netsize will increase as demand for Burst increases, you said so yourself, how can you contradict that now? I didn't say that the amount of Burst being made will increase....

you wrote "the quantity supplied will increase (netsize)"

i read that as if demand rises, we get larger netsize, and thus more BURST coins into existance.
Quantity = number of BURST coins
supplied = new BURST coming into existance due to mining

I think this is the correct chain of events, if we start by assuming a larger demand, the very very first step is of course just an example of what could make demand go up


1) BURST wallet on android with barcode scanner and shower, making exchanging burst between phones as easy as with bitcoin wallet

2) a lot of people previously unrelated to BURST become BURST wallet owners and buy some BURST for their new wallets at the exchanges

3) price go up due to the buys

4) miners see ROI go up as measured in dollars, so they figure it is a good deal to buy more disk space.  New miners are attracted due to the number of BURST expected per terabyte is now worth more due to the higher BURST per dollar price

5) the new TBs of course lead to a larger network size


This works both ways :

1) when bitladen starts threthening doing a 51% attack, some BURST holders decide the risk of temporary trouble with BURST has risen so they sell off some of their burst

2) the selling pressure will take out some bids and the BURST price will go down, measured in BTC

3) the lower prices makes miner ROI look worse, so not so many new miners find it economically attractive to start mining, and existing miners will not buy more disk space as much as the otherwise would

4) the TB taken out, and the less TB coming in means network size go down





When the network size adjusts, it also adjusts the probability of hitting a block, so although the same number of BURST is mined into existence no matter what the network size, The individual miner will get more BURST for a terabyte when network size is small, and less BURST for a terabyte when network size is large.

[ltcnim]

a higher reward would just kill the coin faster since more coins would be dumped but not enough buyers are available.
I think the key is to stabilize first. get rid of all the drama, and focus on development. get a new dev who is first able
to implement all the stuff which is missing (reward assignment in a proper way integrated, marketplace etc.).

then you can think about new features.

[q327K091]

...
...

you wrote "the quantity supplied will increase (netsize)"

i read that as if demand rises, we get larger netsize, and thus more BURST coins into existance.
Quantity = number of BURST coins
supplied = new BURST coming into existance due to mining

I think this is the correct chain of events, if we start by assuming a larger demand, the very very first step is of course just an example of what could make demand go up


1) BURST wallet on android with barcode scanner and shower, making exchanging burst between phones as easy as with bitcoin wallet

2) a lot of people previously unrelated to BURST become BURST wallet owners and buy some BURST for their new wallets at the exchanges

3) price go up due to the buys

4) miners see ROI go up as measured in dollars, so they figure it is a good deal to buy more disk space.  New miners are attracted due to the number of BURST expected per terabyte is now worth more due to the higher BURST per dollar price

5) the new TBs of course lead to a larger network size


This works both ways :

1) when bitladen starts threthening doing a 51% attack, some BURST holders decide the risk of temporary trouble with BURST has risen so they sell off some of their burst

2) the selling pressure will take out some bids and the BURST price will go down, measured in BTC

3) the lower prices makes miner ROI look worse, so not so many new miners find it economically attractive to start mining, and existing miners will not buy more disk space as much as the otherwise would

4) the TB taken out, and the less TB coming in means network size go down





When the network size adjusts, it also adjusts the probability of hitting a block, so although the same number of BURST is mined into existence no matter what the network size, The individual miner will get more BURST for a terabyte when network size is small, and less BURST for a terabyte when network size is large.

what a thoughtful analysis one the best I have seen, thank you, overall this POC (capacity) is a really good idea

the whole crypto business is ultimately based on using these crypto assets , so the idea of assets market place is great too (long term)

believe you are on the cutting edge dear friends regardless of the exchange price, dont get too greedy, I mine just about anything and hold

and would not put down dev team cause many have full time jobs (or school) and they do this off hours, what has been done here in terms of wallet and overall tech is phenomenal without doing this full time, like really

aka you are making history and people will be tracing these conversations one day with amazement ....

---

wont disclose what my overall TB capacity is, but even a thought to overwhelm the network with what is said as 51% attack is down right shooting oneself in a foot, and why and what for for few hundred $ profit ? (at the moment)  

not enough to buy self a shaving cream

I liked (like) very much idea of connecting "solar panels or assets" to BURST (this is just an example, but it does make full sense due to super low energy consumption to the ratio of cryptographic complexity required..) , this is very futuristic , you are probably decades ahead in advance ...

off to scan rest of this landscape latest being Ethereum, that thing chews (that algo) so much energy it could lit the whole city (1000 miners and growing at the moment) probably wont do it as it is a hype, but people like it but it can be repeated in fact you have done it via AT transaction (that person had one day too much beer and something happened and he left, he should come back one day) you have what Ethereum has and alerady talking to Qora.. find it phenomenal and few outside of this forum knows about and  certainly not the population at large is clueless

Ethereum is mined by farms at an enormous cost and quickly dumped on the exchange , the usual pattern , the whole landscape is like that, people buy into expensive farms and then try to take % cut by recycling daily and take FIAT home..

[yellowduck2]

a higher reward would just kill the coin faster since more coins would be dumped but not enough buyers are available.
I think the key is to stabilize first. get rid of all the drama, and focus on development. get a new dev who is first able
to implement all the stuff which is missing (reward assignment in a proper way integrated, marketplace etc.).

then you can think about new features.

Totally,  absolutely agree.

[Irontiga]

a higher reward would just kill the coin faster since more coins would be dumped but not enough buyers are available.
I think the key is to stabilize first. get rid of all the drama, and focus on development. get a new dev who is first able
to implement all the stuff which is missing (reward assignment in a proper way integrated, marketplace etc.).

then you can think about new features.

Totally,  absolutely agree.

Check out wallet.burst.city, reward assignment is already integrated.

[yeponlyone]

Why be afraid of a clone or new coin-fork with some tweaks and other features? Since when has competition been bad?


Let the miners decide with their mining Capacity.

Let the investors decide with their money.

Let the alternatives attract new devs and talent, if possible.

Let's see which one has most support.

Let's - basically - see which one will survive,
 - or let both die,
 - or possibly let a third PoC coin be born out of the discussions, development, competition - and ashes.


Evolution, baby  

[bitladen]

You know guys, let's just leave it as it is. BURST is just perfect, and it's on a clear ascending trend, has no problem at all. It will soon take over the world.

It's not like I expected you would ever say yes, I just enjoy yanking your chain.

crowetic better find you another dev, I'm sure programmers are lined up waiting for an opportunity to prove their skills to the burst "community"

Considering the magnitude of your project, it being the next thing in cryptocurrencies, maybe even Linus Torvalds. He's totally unlike me, not cocky at all, and very humble.