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

[bobafett]

Update and News: www.burstcoin.de

>> New Feature German Solomining Guide now available.
------
Help me to keep up the page and enhance the information for the german community. 220k to go in the Crowfund. Please do some donations!!!!

[1714769767]

1714769767

[1714769767]

1714769767

[vytasz7]

Anybody knows when petabyte asset will pay dividends

[vytasz7]

Did anybody get any dividends from that asset ?

[Elmit]

Did anybody get any dividends from that asset ?

I ask the same question about HardInvest, ...

[Elmit]

Anybody knows when petabyte asset will pay dividends

I am sure they will pay within the next couple of hours, ...

[mczarnek]

Few things:

For anyone worried about Ethereum... remember that when they initially launch they are not actually going to have a UI.  We are miles ahead of them.. though they probably are better known.

But, look at this chart regarding Nxt, in November they had a a bunch of new people join.  The reason is because they gave coinmarketcap $2000 to run a banner ad across the top of their page..  and we are much less known than they were when they ran that campaign.

Think we could crowdfund one?  Any thoughts regarding what such a banner ad might contain?

Nothing at Stake(NaS) is a theoretical attack typically talked about for Proof of Stake(PoS) systems. The general idea stems from the fact that since PoS mining/staking requires negligible work, users can vote(mine) on as many chains as they want with their full voting/mining power, unlike with PoW where their mining power would have to be split to be used on multiple chains. Some people argue that this property weakens the system as smart miners should mine every chain instead of just the one they think is best, as it costs them nothing to mine on the extras and if the other one happens to win they stand to gain, or that someone wanting to attack a coin could pay miners to multi-vote. Users multi-voting this way would reduce the amount of hashpower required to do a 51% attack. As far as I know this has never caused problems to a coin, but it is an interesting and commonly discussed property. This applies to all PoS coins, and it also applies to Burst.
He is criticizing the fact Burst requires work to be done in it's mining, and NaS applies to it, saying it's taking an undesirable property each from PoW and PoS. He's not wrong and I've previously discussed NaS in this thread, however both of those undesirable properties do apply less then than they do in their normal implementations(the work while mining limits the amount of multi-voting you can do, and the work you do is far less than mining PoW coins). Personally I don't see this as a problem.

Thanks for the clarification.  So I guess we can only hope no bad actor attacks BURST...?

It would still require that 51% of the network were bad actors... so not too worried about it.  We might still want to implement some extra protection though that just guarantees this isn't happening.. but nothing to worry about and I don't see any rush.

[CIYAM]

Although I do not recommend "Ethereum bashing" (and I think the PR team should tone it down) this is probably of some interest:

http://www.reddit.com/r/counterparty_xcp/comments/2y0apx/contract_news/

There is a good reason why we didn't focus on creating a HLL for AT.

[bobafett]

has a CF a unique ID or something else, that if there where a web wallet, i could give the specific url to my CF a person and my CF is showed?
I ask because if that is possible, someone could promote this own CF via ads, twitter, .....

[CIYAM]

has a CF a unique ID or something else, that if there where a web wallet, i could give the specific url to my CF a person and my CF is showed?
I ask because if that is possible, someone could promote this own CF via ads, twitter, .....

Each AT has its own "account" so you can simply use that account id for such promotions.

Actually while I am thinking about that - the stupid format used in the alpha-numeric NXT (and BURST) accounts doesn't work at all well with clipboards (i.e. you can't just double click on them or "touch" them to highlight then entire account as it uses "dashes"). I had actually brought this up back when it was first added to Nxt but was ignored (and the separator has nothing to do with the RS algo).

A character other than a dash should really be considered (as Bitcoin addresses are *much better* in this manner - so being "worse than Bitcoin" in usability isn't really a very great thing for a "2.0" platform).

[bobafett]

yes, i think that would be great, if we had direkt url links, because this will offer a easy promotion option to the CF Plattform und make other ideas possible. Also burst users could bring others to burst that had before nothing to do with.

[FakeAccount]

has a CF a unique ID or something else, that if there where a web wallet, i could give the specific url to my CF a person and my CF is showed?
I ask because if that is possible, someone could promote this own CF via ads, twitter, .....

Each AT has its own "account" so you can simply use that account id for such promotions.

Actually while I am thinking about that - the stupid format used in the alpha-numeric NXT (and BURST) accounts doesn't work at all well with clipboards (i.e. you can't just double click on them or "touch" them to highlight then entire account as it uses "dashes"). I had actually brought this up back when it was first added to Nxt but was ignored (and the separator has nothing to do with the RS algo).

A character other than a dash should really be considered (as Bitcoin addresses are *much better* in this manner - so being "worse than Bitcoin" in usability isn't really a very great thing for a "2.0" platform).

I agree with your point, dashes make me think of typing in microsoft product keys, ugh.

[bensam1231]

And someone just added a extra 5PB to the network? I don't think it's people just plotting out excess storage... ROI is up to two years now... I can only fathom someone found out a way to mine over cloud storage easily... or someone figured out how to mine without plotting.

[riskyfire]

And someone just added a extra 5PB to the network? I don't think it's people just plotting out excess storage... ROI is up to two years now... I can only fathom someone found out a way to mine over cloud storage easily... or someone figured out how to mine without plotting.

I think it's some other factor that it causing these big fluctuations in the network. If a person did have access to a vast amount of data storage surely they would bring it online 10,50 or even 100TB at a time?

[bobafett]

lets watch this, diff is back to 17PB... if the guy with the 6h 1000+ has find a way, within the next 24h the diff has to go up again to 25PB....

[equipoise]

And someone just added a extra 5PB to the network? I don't think it's people just plotting out excess storage... ROI is up to two years now... I can only fathom someone found out a way to mine over cloud storage easily... or someone figured out how to mine without plotting.

I think it's some other factor that it causing these big fluctuations in the network. If a person did have access to a vast amount of data storage surely they would bring it online 10,50 or even 100TB at a time?

There was a guy in this thread with access to a lot of cloud space and processors six hours a day. Maybe he is done with the setting script and his burst mining operation is now fully functional.

[vaxman]

And someone just added a extra 5PB to the network? I don't think it's people just plotting out excess storage... ROI is up to two years now... I can only fathom someone found out a way to mine over cloud storage easily... or someone figured out how to mine without plotting.

I think it's some other factor that it causing these big fluctuations in the network. If a person did have access to a vast amount of data storage surely they would bring it online 10,50 or even 100TB at a time?

There was a guy in this thread with access to a lot of cloud space and processors six hours a day. Maybe he is done with the setting script and his burst mining operation is now fully functional.

from the specs he gave the plotting speed needs to be 800 MB/s to fill 16 TB / node in 6 hrs, which yields 8 TB mean per node.
Oh, plus mining concurrently with up to 70 MB/s for 1/4 of the time, ramping up from the beginning. Well, at least the stagger would be nice with ~60 GiB RAM. Oh, and I guess you need a handful of wallets to serve thousand miner instances, or did anyone notice funny numbers on the pools ?

I doubt you get a free trial with these compute- and io-capabilities, a thousand of those, repeatedly ? hmm..

Nonetheless, what a funky homework assignment !

[kurairaito]

https://block.burstcoin.info/api/?request=price&c=USD

give me

{"c":{"price":"0.00346021","market_cap":"0"},"ccex":{"price":"158","volume":"4.94184035","volume_burst":"2762333.3817643","market_cap":"0"},"trex":{"price":"152","volume":"0.82386345","volume_burst":"531105.70492874","market_cap":"0"},"polo":{"price":"159","volume":"2.91756645","volume_burst":"531105.70492874","market_cap":"0"},"price":"156","volume":"8.68327025","volume_burst":"5147663.170563","market_cap":"0"}

Ok it gave me good results hours ago, but now it seems it it broken (market cap is 0 and burst volume of trex and polo are equals !). Also is it possible to provide small but better API ? this one is tricky to get information I want, must use hard regex as this structure is not constant.

Maybe a API to get market cap in currency you want, an other to extract price market you want or an average depending of argument you send, etc.

thanks

Edit, I'll write my own, and share it.

Edit 2 just learned Json_decode function in php... Things get much easier !

[vaxman]

And someone just added a extra 5PB to the network? I don't think it's people just plotting out excess storage... ROI is up to two years now... I can only fathom someone found out a way to mine over cloud storage easily... or someone figured out how to mine without plotting.

I don't think so, from my self-inflicted logalizer these are the network sizes for the last week, 360-block (1d) averaged, in TB:

15240.4
12857
14399.8
15732.5
12798.9
13660.2
15198.9

The various sites quoting network size use very small block-ranges for averaging, not very helpful IMO due to their spikey-ness.

[callmejack]

And someone just added a extra 5PB to the network? I don't think it's people just plotting out excess storage... ROI is up to two years now... I can only fathom someone found out a way to mine over cloud storage easily... or someone figured out how to mine without plotting.

I think it's some other factor that it causing these big fluctuations in the network. If a person did have access to a vast amount of data storage surely they would bring it online 10,50 or even 100TB at a time?

There was a guy in this thread with access to a lot of cloud space and processors six hours a day. Maybe he is done with the setting script and his burst mining operation is now fully functional.

from the specs he gave the plotting speed needs to be 800 MB/s to fill 16 TB / node in 6 hrs, which yields 8 TB mean per node.
Oh, plus mining concurrently with up to 70 MB/s for 1/4 of the time, ramping up from the beginning. Well, at least the stagger would be nice with ~60 GiB RAM. Oh, and I guess you need a handful of wallets to serve thousand miner instances, or did anyone notice funny numbers on the pools ?

I doubt you get a free trial with these compute- and io-capabilities, a thousand of those, repeatedly ? hmm..

Nonetheless, what a funky homework assignment !

nicely summed up vaxman.
i suggested him to run a small "wallet farm" and forgot he could simply limit the submitted deadlines to reduce wallet compute load for verification.
the stagger should be no issue since this is ssd storage.
i never used the cloud myself but maybe he is able to rent the storage and can connect the miners to it.
last time i have checked the options it was'nt such expensive for large storage amounts simply because you pay for io cycles in combination with transfered volumes. if the stagger is high and on cloud plotted onto a connected permanent storage by the 6h machines with big staggers the read cycles should be reduced to only 8-32 for each block depending on plotsizes.
i am not aware of their tos but if they do an audit (and i am sure they do for such load) there will be a huge invoice for the compute nodes because the use is for sure against their tos.
but who knows....

[vaxman]

And someone just added a extra 5PB to the network? I don't think it's people just plotting out excess storage... ROI is up to two years now... I can only fathom someone found out a way to mine over cloud storage easily... or someone figured out how to mine without plotting.

I think it's some other factor that it causing these big fluctuations in the network. If a person did have access to a vast amount of data storage surely they would bring it online 10,50 or even 100TB at a time?

There was a guy in this thread with access to a lot of cloud space and processors six hours a day. Maybe he is done with the setting script and his burst mining operation is now fully functional.

from the specs he gave the plotting speed needs to be 800 MB/s to fill 16 TB / node in 6 hrs, which yields 8 TB mean per node.
Oh, plus mining concurrently with up to 70 MB/s for 1/4 of the time, ramping up from the beginning. Well, at least the stagger would be nice with ~60 GiB RAM. Oh, and I guess you need a handful of wallets to serve thousand miner instances, or did anyone notice funny numbers on the pools ?

I doubt you get a free trial with these compute- and io-capabilities, a thousand of those, repeatedly ? hmm..

Nonetheless, what a funky homework assignment !

nicely summed up vaxman.
i suggested him to run a small "wallet farm" and forgot he could simply limit the submitted deadlines to reduce wallet compute load for verification.
the stagger should be no issue since this is ssd storage.
i never used the cloud myself but maybe he is able to rent the storage and can connect the miners to it.
last time i have checked the options it was'nt such expensive for large storage amounts simply because you pay for io cycles in combination with transfered volumes. if the stagger is high and on cloud plotted onto a connected permanent storage by the 6h machines with big staggers the read cycles should be reduced to only 8-32 for each block depending on plotsizes.
i am not aware of their tos but if they do an audit (and i am sure they do for such load) there will be a huge invoice for the compute nodes because the use is for sure against their tos.
but who knows....

Wow, I didn't have the info about the type of storage.
Which makes this even more improbable..
Unlimited CPU and IO is a no brainer, anyone can do the math. As a provider you somehow need to get your capex back in <2y or you're broke fast.
Add the opex for running 1k 16c/64GB boxes w/16TB SDD under full load for a single user and I bet he gets barely one test-cycle before controlling invalidates the free-ride tickets.