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

[bitladen]

community development is the obvious choice for an open source project. I never assumed it wasn't community developed. it just happened there was only one dev. but by all means, everybody should contribute.

Great, then can we implement the reward changes and start working on the market?


Also, I sent a message to the dev for SIA to see if they'd be interested in integrating their storage and our mining style. If he gets back to me, I'll need a developer to speak with him.

I can talk to him, of course.

[BurstIncomeAsset]

Ok people we are really liquid, the INCOME asset will provide perpetual income. Today we made again +0.37644% gains , and current daily average is 0.23989%/day (based on our 4 day sample)



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

People should really buy INCOME now, we need atleast 1 BTC worth of funds to really start making big bucks daily!


Actually I was thinking about (since the BURST price is so low), to give out INCOME shares directly for BTC.

So if you want to purchase INCOME for BTC the price is  150 satoshi / INCOME, which is a lot cheaper than what it costs in BURST, but this way we wont have to sell BURST to convert into BTC (for the investment), so that will not push the BURST price lower.

Minimum amount is 0.001 BTC.

So if anybody is interested you can PM me, and I send you the instructions!


We really need 1 BTC of funds, so buy INCOME!

[Takeshi_Kovacs]

I'd like to add my comments to the discussion on burst.

I've not been very active on here so I'll start by saying a little about myself.

I have been mining burst for quite a while. Not from the very beginning but from a few weeks after it started. I am only mining with disks that were laying around unused at home. I have not sold any coins since October last year so I am holding a decent amount. I am mining solo but I have mined on devs v1 and v2 pools. My miners are all running on fedora but I have mined in the past on XP and w7. I am a professional sw engineer and I have been writing code since the sixties.

OK, that is me, this is what I have to say:

We should not change the way in which block rewards are allocated. We all knew what the rewards were when we started out and we accepted that but there is a stronger reason than just that. If an outsider looks at the coin, what will they think if the elite few running the coin feel that it is OK to change something that basic just one year in? It does not look like the trustworthy foundation that is needed. The same goes for the idea of a dev fund. The coin's elite just arbitrarily saying that they will have ten percent off the top because they want it? What might they do next? This will deter newcomers to the coin whether they are miners, investors or developers.

We should not be looking for some fairy godmother lead developer. First of all as crowetic discovered, somebody like that is hard to find. Furthermore, the coin would then be hostage to that new lead dev's personal situation and wishes. The existing team should work to build a group of devs who can all put in a little time and the core team should work hard to attract and encourage such people.

Some months ago, I made a post on here about using burst as a storage network. Burst is better than the other coins that are trying to do this. We have miners with lots of storage who could repurpose their disk space between plots and storage as the market required. We also have a coin with ATs which could be used to govern the storage contracts. We could use them to make sure not only that clients can pay for storage and that disk farmers can be rewarded but also to ensure that neither party can carry out a "nothing at stake" attack. In my earlier post, I offered to pitch in with development effort to help set that up but none of the coin's core team responded. My offer is still open and I would suggest to the core team that they should consider that and any other offers.

@Irontiga: I believe that you are in godzone. If you are in Ak, perhaps we could meet and chat and if you think that I can help out, you can talk to the rest of the core team.

I would propose the following as action items for the short term:

1) Try to recruit developers who will commit a few hours of their time as and when they can. Create some kind of on-boarding process for these volunteers such as getting the sources off github, making some trivial change and rebuilding all of the files that would make up a release. Just to check that they have the basic technical ability to contribute. Then establish a set of procedures for code reviews before changes to the burst software are accepted. Document that whole process.

2) Build a set of unit tests. We need these if we are going to have a number of devs working on different parts of the code. Any dev who wants to get involved should start there. It's not going to add features but it will make it a lot easier and safer to roll out new features in the future.

3) Setup a group to thrash out a roadmap of new features that will be implemented by the new dev-team over the next 12 months.

4) Perform a review of burst's POC algorithms. I understand that the security of these has been questioned so we should address that. I have a fair understanding of cryptography and I have access to people who work at the bleeding edge in that field so I can help there.

5) Lighten up on the abuse. Name calling and the use of disrespectful miss-spellings of folk's usernames should stop. It does not make the coin any better and it does not make people look any better if they do it.

I have not written anything about PR or white-papers but if we got through the five points above we would have lots to tell the world about and most of what we would need for a white-paper would have been sorted out.

That's it.

[SpeedDemon13]

community development is the obvious choice for an open source project. I never assumed it wasn't community developed. it just happened there was only one dev. but by all means, everybody should contribute.

Great, then can we implement the reward changes and start working on the market?


Also, I sent a message to the dev for SIA to see if they'd be interested in integrating their storage and our mining style. If he gets back to me, I'll need a developer to speak with him.

Someone said that the SIA dev/Taek didn't like Burst for some reason. I would think it's a perfect cross project idea, especially if the plots can some how be converted to usable storage in SIA? Maybe also, have Burst linked some how to ETH, BlockNet and/or SuperNet?

If worst comes to worst, just fork Burst and make a whole new PoC coin....

[bitladen]

community development is the obvious choice for an open source project. I never assumed it wasn't community developed. it just happened there was only one dev. but by all means, everybody should contribute.

Great, then can we implement the reward changes and start working on the market?


Also, I sent a message to the dev for SIA to see if they'd be interested in integrating their storage and our mining style. If he gets back to me, I'll need a developer to speak with him.

Someone said that the SIA dev/Taek didn't like Burst for some reason. I would think it's a perfect cross project idea, especially if the plots can some how be converted to usable storage in SIA? Maybe also, have Burst linked some how to ETH, BlockNet and/or SuperNet?

If worst comes to worst, just fork Burst and make a whole new PoC coin....

technically the plots can't hold data
however it would be possible to do merged mining  POC + some scheme for the storage thing.
Or perhaps integrate a storage market, or build it with AT's. Which is what I really had in mind when I suggested this to crow. So you would give up your plots but rent your storage instead.

[SpeedDemon13]

community development is the obvious choice for an open source project. I never assumed it wasn't community developed. it just happened there was only one dev. but by all means, everybody should contribute.

Great, then can we implement the reward changes and start working on the market?


Also, I sent a message to the dev for SIA to see if they'd be interested in integrating their storage and our mining style. If he gets back to me, I'll need a developer to speak with him.

Someone said that the SIA dev/Taek didn't like Burst for some reason. I would think it's a perfect cross project idea, especially if the plots can some how be converted to usable storage in SIA? Maybe also, have Burst linked some how to ETH, BlockNet and/or SuperNet?

If worst comes to worst, just fork Burst and make a whole new PoC coin....

technically the plots can't hold data
however it would be possible to do merged mining  POC + some scheme for the storage thing.
or perhaps integrate a storage market, or build it with AT's

Something has to be hybrid some how, even if the storage integration of the plots aren't currently possible.

[BurstIncomeAsset]

Ok people we are really liquid, the INCOME asset will provide perpetual income. Today we made again +0.37644% gains , and current daily average is 0.23989%/day (based on our 4 day sample)

.....

https://block.burstcoin.info/as.php?as=11188744773544606055

Looks like the INCOME is finally getting bought. Somebody put a 10 BURST BID, so the spread now is smaller, and can be easily traded.

I already said that I won't sell anymore INCOME at BID price (nor more sell walls at ASK , for the near future) , so the asset is free to trade/speculate.


But for now it looks like it's going only up! It would be nice to go above 20 BURST soon, as my ASK orders are >15, to get more funding.

Of course we will support BYTEENT, and a little bit of solarfarm, as we already hold 15383 BYTEENT & 1500 solarfarm

Here are our holdings:
https://block.burstcoin.info/acc.php?acc=BURST-XCJ9-Z5H2-MVKM-HA8EP

+0.11 BTC in the Satoshidice investment program.

[Irontiga]

I'd like to add my comments to the discussion on burst.

I've not been very active on here so I'll start by saying a little about myself.

I have been mining burst for quite a while. Not from the very beginning but from a few weeks after it started. I am only mining with disks that were laying around unused at home. I have not sold any coins since October last year so I am holding a decent amount. I am mining solo but I have mined on devs v1 and v2 pools. My miners are all running on fedora but I have mined in the past on XP and w7. I am a professional sw engineer and I have been writing code since the sixties.

OK, that is me, this is what I have to say:

We should not change the way in which block rewards are allocated. We all knew what the rewards were when we started out and we accepted that but there is a stronger reason than just that. If an outsider looks at the coin, what will they think if the elite few running the coin feel that it is OK to change something that basic just one year in? It does not look like the trustworthy foundation that is needed. The same goes for the idea of a dev fund. The coin's elite just arbitrarily saying that they will have ten percent off the top because they want it? What might they do next? This will deter newcomers to the coin whether they are miners, investors or developers.

We should not be looking for some fairy godmother lead developer. First of all as crowetic discovered, somebody like that is hard to find. Furthermore, the coin would then be hostage to that new lead dev's personal situation and wishes. The existing team should work to build a group of devs who can all put in a little time and the core team should work hard to attract and encourage such people.

Some months ago, I made a post on here about using burst as a storage network. Burst is better than the other coins that are trying to do this. We have miners with lots of storage who could repurpose their disk space between plots and storage as the market required. We also have a coin with ATs which could be used to govern the storage contracts. We could use them to make sure not only that clients can pay for storage and that disk farmers can be rewarded but also to ensure that neither party can carry out a "nothing at stake" attack. In my earlier post, I offered to pitch in with development effort to help set that up but none of the coin's core team responded. My offer is still open and I would suggest to the core team that they should consider that and any other offers.

@Irontiga: I believe that you are in godzone. If you are in Ak, perhaps we could meet and chat and if you think that I can help out, you can talk to the rest of the core team.

I would propose the following as action items for the short term:

1) Try to recruit developers who will commit a few hours of their time as and when they can. Create some kind of on-boarding process for these volunteers such as getting the sources off github, making some trivial change and rebuilding all of the files that would make up a release. Just to check that they have the basic technical ability to contribute. Then establish a set of procedures for code reviews before changes to the burst software are accepted. Document that whole process.

2) Build a set of unit tests. We need these if we are going to have a number of devs working on different parts of the code. Any dev who wants to get involved should start there. It's not going to add features but it will make it a lot easier and safer to roll out new features in the future.

3) Setup a group to thrash out a roadmap of new features that will be implemented by the new dev-team over the next 12 months.

4) Perform a review of burst's POC algorithms. I understand that the security of these has been questioned so we should address that. I have a fair understanding of cryptography and I have access to people who work at the bleeding edge in that field so I can help there.

5) Lighten up on the abuse. Name calling and the use of disrespectful miss-spellings of folk's usernames should stop. It does not make the coin any better and it does not make people look any better if they do it.

I have not written anything about PR or white-papers but if we got through the five points above we would have lots to tell the world about and most of what we would need for a white-paper would have been sorted out.

That's it.

Awesome That sounds like how it should be, not just a decentralized coin but also decentralized development.

@Irontiga: I believe that you are in godzone. If you are in Ak, perhaps we could meet and chat and if you think that I can help out, you can talk to the rest of the core team.

No idea what godzone means...looks like some race? I'm in New Zealand though, but not AK if that means Auckland. PM me and maybe we could arrange something...idk. If you really are a SW engineer then you can definitely help out! For me the things we should be focussing on are storage and improving the marketplace/asset exchange. So yeah, we both agree on storage, as do most others I'm sure.

Also, @burstincomeasset, your asset is great, but no need to spam the thread with daily earnings. Your burstforum thread is for that

[bitladen]

AK means Ace King, not quite AA

[wmikrut]

Crowetic,

I don't speak much... I just hang out as a lurker keeping an eye on all things crypto.
You know I have been at this since nearly day one with you and a few others... Iron comes to mind.

You have my full support... and I have full confidence that you, along with the others who are serious about this coin, will lead it back to stability.
Just needed to be said.

Monster Burst supporter now fading back into the background!

[BurstIncomeAsset]

Also, @burstincomeasset, your asset is great, but no need to spam the thread with daily earnings. Your burstforum thread is for that

Hmm, alright, I just feel that the burstforum is a bit empty, and not much people see it.

I will post only major updates then.

(By the way, the burstforum's security certificate has expired, and it always shows me an "untrusted connection" error when i visit it, that needs to be fixed too)

[crowetic]

I'd like to add my comments to the discussion on burst.

I've not been very active on here so I'll start by saying a little about myself.

I have been mining burst for quite a while. Not from the very beginning but from a few weeks after it started. I am only mining with disks that were laying around unused at home. I have not sold any coins since October last year so I am holding a decent amount. I am mining solo but I have mined on devs v1 and v2 pools. My miners are all running on fedora but I have mined in the past on XP and w7. I am a professional sw engineer and I have been writing code since the sixties.

OK, that is me, this is what I have to say:

We should not change the way in which block rewards are allocated. We all knew what the rewards were when we started out and we accepted that but there is a stronger reason than just that. If an outsider looks at the coin, what will they think if the elite few running the coin feel that it is OK to change something that basic just one year in? It does not look like the trustworthy foundation that is needed. The same goes for the idea of a dev fund. The coin's elite just arbitrarily saying that they will have ten percent off the top because they want it? What might they do next? This will deter newcomers to the coin whether they are miners, investors or developers.

We should not be looking for some fairy godmother lead developer. First of all as crowetic discovered, somebody like that is hard to find. Furthermore, the coin would then be hostage to that new lead dev's personal situation and wishes. The existing team should work to build a group of devs who can all put in a little time and the core team should work hard to attract and encourage such people.

Some months ago, I made a post on here about using burst as a storage network. Burst is better than the other coins that are trying to do this. We have miners with lots of storage who could repurpose their disk space between plots and storage as the market required. We also have a coin with ATs which could be used to govern the storage contracts. We could use them to make sure not only that clients can pay for storage and that disk farmers can be rewarded but also to ensure that neither party can carry out a "nothing at stake" attack. In my earlier post, I offered to pitch in with development effort to help set that up but none of the coin's core team responded. My offer is still open and I would suggest to the core team that they should consider that and any other offers.

@Irontiga: I believe that you are in godzone. If you are in Ak, perhaps we could meet and chat and if you think that I can help out, you can talk to the rest of the core team.

I would propose the following as action items for the short term:

1) Try to recruit developers who will commit a few hours of their time as and when they can. Create some kind of on-boarding process for these volunteers such as getting the sources off github, making some trivial change and rebuilding all of the files that would make up a release. Just to check that they have the basic technical ability to contribute. Then establish a set of procedures for code reviews before changes to the burst software are accepted. Document that whole process.

2) Build a set of unit tests. We need these if we are going to have a number of devs working on different parts of the code. Any dev who wants to get involved should start there. It's not going to add features but it will make it a lot easier and safer to roll out new features in the future.

3) Setup a group to thrash out a roadmap of new features that will be implemented by the new dev-team over the next 12 months.

4) Perform a review of burst's POC algorithms. I understand that the security of these has been questioned so we should address that. I have a fair understanding of cryptography and I have access to people who work at the bleeding edge in that field so I can help there.

5) Lighten up on the abuse. Name calling and the use of disrespectful miss-spellings of folk's usernames should stop. It does not make the coin any better and it does not make people look any better if they do it.

I have not written anything about PR or white-papers but if we got through the five points above we would have lots to tell the world about and most of what we would need for a white-paper would have been sorted out.

That's it.

Thank you for the comments, but I disagree on the modification comment. We noticed, that after a year, the reward decrease happened too fast for what else was going on in the coin. The ability to modify it a little, and make it be able to work out better over an extended period of time would be the goal here, while allowing miners to have either more profit if they dump, or more long term profit if they don't.

Also, the tax wouldn't go to a single person, and discussions would happen with the community as far as ideas on how to spend the money, multi-sig held, etc. Maybe even an AT controlled account. There are many ways we can setup this type of thing.

The idea of an open community development project makes a lot of sense as it IS open source afterall, so that is what we're going to do at this very point in time, people can clone the git, make their suggested changes, and post for approval, then we can implement into a new main git when a few coders have approved it and it all looks good to go.

I would love a review of the algo. Please do this if you can.

Also, get as many devs as you can, greatly appreciated, then if we want to go back to a core team style development, we can do that. But for now, with all the reactions I got when suggesting the structure I did, open community development is where we will be until something better comes along.

[crowetic]

Crowetic,

I don't speak much... I just hang out as a lurker keeping an eye on all things crypto.
You know I have been at this since nearly day one with you and a few others... Iron comes to mind.

You have my full support... and I have full confidence that you, along with the others who are serious about this coin, will lead it back to stability.
Just needed to be said.

Monster Burst supporter now fading back into the background!

Thanks bro, I appreciate that. I can only promise I won't make rash decisions and that I'll do whatever I can for the betterment of the coin, including promotion and writing, and communication with any person that we feel could assist in one way or another. Eventually I'll learn to code and I can assist in that aspect as well.

I've given a lot of time to this coin, and I will continue to do so.

Thanks again, with all the stuff going on lately, that was certainly nice to hear. xD

[wmikrut]

People forget... even two years after the launch of Bitcoin the value was under $3 a piece.
A few years after Litecoin was launched -- it was considered garbage and was valued way under $0.01/piece.

As mentioned, Burst is only one year old.
It's popularity is incredible for a coin only one year old.

Imagine where it could be two or three years from now.

I remember when there were four or five coins to choose from.  BTC, LTC, IXC, I0X and Solid Coin were the only real choices.
Now there are literally hundreds and hundreds, well into the thousands of clones.

Burst remains the only POC coin in it's class.
Think about that... and you'll realize how amazing this coin really is!

 

[BurstIncomeAsset]

People forget... even two years after the launch of Bitcoin the value was under $3 a piece.
A few years after Litecoin was launched -- it was considered garbage and was valued way under $0.01/piece.

As mentioned, Burst is only one year old.
It's popularity is incredible for a coin only one year old.

Imagine where it could be two or three years from now.

I remember when there were four or five coins to choose from.  BTC, LTC, IXC, I0X and Solid Coin were the only real choices.
Now there are literally hundreds and hundreds, well into the thousands of clones.

Burst remains the only POC coin in it's class.
Think about that... and you'll realize how amazing this coin really is!

Indeed, those who sell BURST now might regret it later. Current price is 27 satoshi, and in the future it can be 27000 satoshi. They will be probably angry at themselves, but it is just what happens if people are impatient.

I think those who buy & hold will be rewarded the most. While those who panic-sell will lose the most.

[haitch]

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


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

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

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



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

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

1. Can agree to.

2. No, not 15K. Raise it to where it would be if it had declined at 1% per month - around 8,500. At 1% per month we get annual deflation of 11.4% and require the price to raise 12% to maintain value. At the 5% per month we were getting 46% deflation, and needed 85% annual price increase to maintain value.

3) No need to change transaction fees.

H.

[rendravolt]

Burst remains steady, I do not hesitate to always here.

[pinballdude]

I suppose it is now obvious that the suggestions I've made as far as appointing a new main dev are not going to be accepted.


Since this is the case, what is the suggestion from anyone else? We open it up for community development? Okay, in theory... but will it actually happen? I'm doubtful.



We try to find another dev willing to literally pay to work and hope their work raises the coin's value?


We continue on without any updates?


What?


I'm not sure, since all my ideas are shut down by everyone. Maybe everyone should help me with the big issues here...


Everything is perfect, BURST never needs anymore updates ever?

We wait for main dev and hope he returns from wherever he went without even telling anyone?


I had someone willing to take over, but the community isn't willing to either help fund the team nor give ideas and a way to carry them out regarding the central development.


what now? seriously...

I'm sure i'm not the only one running a modified version of burstcoin - my own release if you may call it that. If there was a problem with the coin, i could quite easily make a new release with a fix in it, it's a fairly simple java project to compile.

I am sure we are probably 5 to 10 at least of not more relatively active users, that could, if need be, make a new release within hours, but of course if there is a nasty bug somewhere, it might take us somewhat longer to hunt it down and fix it, as we ( or at least i ) haven't spent a lot of time working with the code in detail.

I would also be able to fix bugs and build a release of the windows wallet if i really, really had to - i haven't even downloaded it, but it seems to be written in delphi or some deriative of that, and i spent many years coding using that language professionally back in the 90s


I understand some of you who are both entrepeneurial and have the time are very impatient and want something to happen..  i would propose something similar to what we did with liberland, where we had a bunch of volunteers not really doing much about things, esp. if it was costly, and some rich guys that had money, not time, and some people good at getting things done, who had time and knowledge, but not really wanted to work for free and have all the "volunteers" totally freeride their efforts..

we created liberland settlement corporation, and sold shares in that company.  its goal was to homestead and keep a settlement on liberland island and try to make a claim on that area, and also develop all sorts of businesses related to liberalnd, like a place where settlers can buy supplies, etc. The shareholders would own part of a company that would be the first company trying to make money in this new country, and if liberland would become a success, all early shareholders would get a very good profit, if we managed to homestead liberland iceland, they would even own quite a lot of pristine land, with water access etc.

investors loved it and shares were sold out in days, we could establish liberland settlement association, and now we more or less run the place, as we have money, and the volunteers have not.


You could do the same with BURST.   Use assets to determine ownership. Sell the assets at a somewhat low price, so that investors can see profits ahead. Make the company charter about developing commercial services that utilize BURST and about developing enhancements to BURST that is needed by these services. This is a company that intends to make a profit for its shareholders, by being the first serious commercial entity determined to make money off services using BURST.  You put a businessman in charge ( could be you ) and you sit tight on the money, but still spend money to get things done when neccessary. People who work for the company preferrably get paid in company shares, but stuff you need is paid by the company funds.

I would start the company with a market cap at 1000 BTC, and promise to use at most 1% of company funds each month, so investors in the beginning wil know that there is lots of capital backing, so they can get out when they want. for instance, 100000 assets priced at the BURST equivalent of 1000/100000 BTC.

so what do you get as an investor :

You own part of a well funded company that will soon own a lot of BURST related services and products and will soon earn good money by selling these services to end customers. You own part of a well funded company that have both the means and the muscle to make things happen with BURST, The company can build commercial usages of BURST services to be launched soon after the BURST service is launched. You own part of a company that will be the only obvious way to invest in BURST, driven by insiders who know the BURST inside out.

You could sell some of your revenue generating assets to the company for shares, and you could be CEO and get paid sweat equity, basically, each hour someone works for the company, they get paid some company shares for their time.

The company should never aleniate the volunteers by dictating BURST direction and changing how BURST work without having almost everyone agreeing, people should always feel they have a choice, but suppose someone has a good idea, but lack funding and infrastructure - they will perhaps go to the company to get all those things, in exchange they can get paid sweat equity for their hard work, if the company finds that their hard work will go towards making the company more money.

If you do it this way, you won't have to directly tap into burst users and burst holders using taxes or coersion, but simply use company funds to develop stuff ( like for instance a wallet, company forming consultancy, asset management services, whatnot ).  As a company you can develop whatever feature you find is needed with BURST, and hand the new feature over to the community as a pull request - the company will then launch its services and products almost immediatly after BURST supports what they need, and you have a nice time advantage there.  After a few successful launches, people will also know that services and products from the company is in fact backed both financially and people wise, and meet a high standard.

The company funds should probably be held as BTC. I am not sure if you can transfer assets without paying for them in BURST, i think you can. So to buy company shares, you either pay for them with BURST inside the BURST system, or directly with BTC and then get them transferred to your burst account. With funds held as BTC investors do not have the risk that BURST price collapses or the BURST network goes bonkers temporarily. On the contrary, the company will be able to buy lots of BURST at a good price, should the BURST price collapse for some reason.

Instead of distributing income, you could accumulate it, and for instance, monthly reports of company holdings and NAV could be published, this could help set the price fairly.

We sold liberland shares at 100 CHF each, which was about one third of what we thought would be fair price, we also preannounced that we would only sell them at that price for one month, then the price would be 200 CHF, and the month after that 300 CHF.  We wanted to give the early birds and thus biiig risk takers a very good deal, and it worked quite well, we sold out pretty fast at the lowest price, we even had to turn many really rich people down, as they would otherwise practically own everything bc they had so much money to spend.

If you pull off something like this, make sure the company doesn't live in one of those police states where the taxman and the government closes you down bc they don't like not to control company formation. Make sure no hostile nation state thinks it has the right to tax and control the company's assets.

[yeponlyone]

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


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

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

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



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

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

Nice, but some devfund most be established to cover expenses. I think it makes sense that a small part of each block should be devoted to this. Not anywhere near 10% but some.

Fees can also be made relative to the sum sent: Are you sending large amounts, it's not unreasonable with higher fees.

Right, I did forget that part, there will still be a dev fund, and I think 10% is fair, but we can go lower, maybe 8? But it isn't just a dev fund, you can think of it as a future promo, development and just an overall futures fund for the coin...

It will allow us to HIRE devs to do whatever we need, hire graphic designers, whatever the coin needs! I don't see why everyone expects the few members who already put a ton of work into everything to pay for all of this out of their pockets as well, I'm a fairly large miner and I would have absolutely no issue with this percentage going to further the coin.

Then when we can get our p2p voting system implemented, the people with more coin can have more power in helping to decide how that money is spent. So it isn't like there will be an overlord who will decide everything. There will be voting and we will all make decisions, and of course, the ones with a larger stake and thus more invested into the coin will have more of a say. I feel this is ultimately extremely fair.

Sure, but I think you have to consider how a "devfund" will be perceived both by the community at large, the BURST community and newcomers. Words like "tax" and "premine" have already been used... and in my world, words like that do not have positive connotation. Consider comments on a premine of 8 percent...

No matter which percentage is implemented at first, it needs to be extremely well-explained and argumented.

From my point of view, a p2p voting system is great if it can be implemented, but it still is the chosen number that will be highlighted in discussions. One counter-argument here to a high percentage like one 8th of each block, is that it doesn't properly consider the expected value-increase of BURST. 8 percent can be quite a lot of money in two years, and quite ridiculous in double that time.

If PoC catches on as we hope and we'll see an opposite trend to what we seen this year in popularity the coming years, the accumulated amount could simply become more than you can spend, more or less, without being "careless", paying too much, hiring too many, promote too often to be reasonable. If the fund would become that big, it could also become sort of a target where big holders get together to get their "investments ideas" through, like giving money to the most biggest holders...

I'd suggest to lower the percentage more than to 8, but also in the argumentation for the system add that money from the devfund - if it becomes too big due to value-increase - funding also will go back to the community, miners and holders in certain ways.

Such ways could be that the fund can be used to have a "sale" in the market-place, make payments to crowdfunding projects, add money to lotteries or even charity, etc.

If doing so, I think it's appropriate to change the name of the "devfund" to the "BURST foundation" to highlight a possible wider-usage of the funds.

[pinballdude]

I'd like to add my comments to the discussion on burst.

I've not been very active on here so I'll start by saying a little about myself.

I have been mining burst for quite a while. Not from the very beginning but from a few weeks after it started. I am only mining with disks that were laying around unused at home. I have not sold any coins since October last year so I am holding a decent amount. I am mining solo but I have mined on devs v1 and v2 pools. My miners are all running on fedora but I have mined in the past on XP and w7. I am a professional sw engineer and I have been writing code since the sixties.

OK, that is me, this is what I have to say:

We should not change the way in which block rewards are allocated. We all knew what the rewards were when we started out and we accepted that but there is a stronger reason than just that. If an outsider looks at the coin, what will they think if the elite few running the coin feel that it is OK to change something that basic just one year in? It does not look like the trustworthy foundation that is needed. The same goes for the idea of a dev fund. The coin's elite just arbitrarily saying that they will have ten percent off the top because they want it? What might they do next? This will deter newcomers to the coin whether they are miners, investors or developers.

We should not be looking for some fairy godmother lead developer. First of all as crowetic discovered, somebody like that is hard to find. Furthermore, the coin would then be hostage to that new lead dev's personal situation and wishes. The existing team should work to build a group of devs who can all put in a little time and the core team should work hard to attract and encourage such people.

Some months ago, I made a post on here about using burst as a storage network. Burst is better than the other coins that are trying to do this. We have miners with lots of storage who could repurpose their disk space between plots and storage as the market required. We also have a coin with ATs which could be used to govern the storage contracts. We could use them to make sure not only that clients can pay for storage and that disk farmers can be rewarded but also to ensure that neither party can carry out a "nothing at stake" attack. In my earlier post, I offered to pitch in with development effort to help set that up but none of the coin's core team responded. My offer is still open and I would suggest to the core team that they should consider that and any other offers.

@Irontiga: I believe that you are in godzone. If you are in Ak, perhaps we could meet and chat and if you think that I can help out, you can talk to the rest of the core team.

I would propose the following as action items for the short term:

1) Try to recruit developers who will commit a few hours of their time as and when they can. Create some kind of on-boarding process for these volunteers such as getting the sources off github, making some trivial change and rebuilding all of the files that would make up a release. Just to check that they have the basic technical ability to contribute. Then establish a set of procedures for code reviews before changes to the burst software are accepted. Document that whole process.

2) Build a set of unit tests. We need these if we are going to have a number of devs working on different parts of the code. Any dev who wants to get involved should start there. It's not going to add features but it will make it a lot easier and safer to roll out new features in the future.

3) Setup a group to thrash out a roadmap of new features that will be implemented by the new dev-team over the next 12 months.

4) Perform a review of burst's POC algorithms. I understand that the security of these has been questioned so we should address that. I have a fair understanding of cryptography and I have access to people who work at the bleeding edge in that field so I can help there.

5) Lighten up on the abuse. Name calling and the use of disrespectful miss-spellings of folk's usernames should stop. It does not make the coin any better and it does not make people look any better if they do it.

I have not written anything about PR or white-papers but if we got through the five points above we would have lots to tell the world about and most of what we would need for a white-paper would have been sorted out.

That's it.

What he said, except i only started developing software in the 80s

I also think we have an opportunity window to make a file system on top of or driven by burst. I think such a thing would be outright revolutionary and could drive up the price of burst 10 or 20 fold over a few months. If we can get an anonymous decentralized encrypted file storage service online, it would be even more valuable than e.g. dropbox. Not easy to create, but we have the advantage of having payment system, decentralized network, and several terabytes of storage already. Not a bad start.