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

[Hubus]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=731923.msg10783246#msg10783246

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work

Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.

Thank you, I really like those comparisons  ! I quoted it into my thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982957.msg10799602#msg10799602

[1715536127]

1715536127

[1715536127]

1715536127

[Hubus]

i think info addr should be a ip adress or a dns name?!

Seems to work now, thank you!

Hello, sorry, did not have time to test further. Now I have different error messages:

connect function failed with error: 10060

 

[mczarnek]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=731923.msg10783246#msg10783246

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work

Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.

Thank you, I really like those comparisons  ! I quoted it into my thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982957.msg10799602#msg10799602

Thanks hubus!!

Would you mind removing this post? Based on bad numbers and I went back and rewrote it(version you have posted above it) 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982957.msg10799632#msg10799632

[seasonw]

A different question:

Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW:

"Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?":
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982957.0

For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation...

But maybe we could get an idea.

Thank you.

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake

You still need a computer and hard drive running to power Proof of Stake... but let's say that you do add 50 3TB drives to that computer, you could split your plots up across all of these of hard drives, and the only turn on two hard drives at a time per block.  With POC2.. you'll only need to turn on 1 hard drives, one that stores signatures, one that stores the current scoop being read.

Otherwise, it'd consume 50 * 10 Watts per hard drive.  So this equals 500 Watts = 0.5 kW

1 kW*hr costs 12 cents.  Meaning 0.5 kWhr costs 0.5 * $0.12 = $0.06/hr  

$0.06/hr * 24 hr/day * 365 days/yr = $500 of electricity per year

In my mind, eventually a device that starts switching drives off and on in my mind could be POC's version of an ASIC. This could bring the power usage down to about 12W total since you'd still have 1 hard drive running continually, plus the device would use some tiny amount of power.

Point being, there is definitely financial incentive to create such a device, which would definitely sell to POC mining farms, and once this type of device for connecting these hard drives to the network is being made, I suspect it'll pretty widely used for plugging in a variable number of drives.

Back to how much energy POC uses vs POS, and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts, POC uses 500 extra Watts that means that POC uses 800 Watts.

800 W / 300W = approx 2.7 as much energy as POS.  So it's reasonable.

In other words POC2 uses 270% more energy than Proof of Stake.


Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work

Assume you go with the above assumption that you connect 50  hard drives to the computer, and each hard drive costs $100 each.  That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W.  Now let's pick a random Bitcoin miner.  The TerraMiner IV which to err on Bitcoin's side, let's say it costs $1,000 USD (I can find it on Amazon for $750 - http://www.amazon.com/CoinTerra-Terraminer-Iv/dp/B00JK64DXA but the original price was $1,200) and uses 2.1kW .

So $5000 worth of bitcoin miners = $5000 / $1,000 = 5 machines.  
5 machines equals 5* 2.1KW worth of energy = 10.5 kW.

So POW uses 10.5 kW of electricity for an equivalent investment POC uses .8 kW of electricity.


10.5/0.8 KW = 13.13 times

Which means that POW uses 13.13 more energy than POC.

The plus sides and reasons why POC beats POS though that POC is more decentralized, ASIC proof meaning even the little guy can mine, and more secure than POS, etc.  And no history key attack potential plus mining is a great way to get new people into crypto currency.  You can mine POC with no money spent buying coins first..  once we're doing 100s or 1000s of transactions, it'll be profitable for every day people to connect their extra hard drive space to the Burst network and join the network.  Once they have free coins, they are more likely to be long term adopters.

And if you need proof regarding the last point that getting miners to join the network will be easier.. go look at Burst's estimated network size:
http://burstcoin.eu/charts/estimated-network-size

It's barely profitable to mine because people are willing to contribute hard drive space toward earning 'free' coins.. meaning this will be a great way to get people interested in Proof of Capacity currencies in the future because they are ASIC proof.

Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.

Awesome comparison... Wondering when will POC2 release?

[FakeAccount]

A different question:

Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW:

"Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?":
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982957.0

For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation...

But maybe we could get an idea.

Thank you.

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake

You still need a computer and hard drive running to power Proof of Stake... but let's say that you do add 50 3TB drives to that computer, you could split your plots up across all of these of hard drives, and the only turn on two hard drives at a time per block.  With POC2.. you'll only need to turn on 1 hard drives, one that stores signatures, one that stores the current scoop being read.

Otherwise, it'd consume 50 * 10 Watts per hard drive.  So this equals 500 Watts = 0.5 kW

1 kW*hr costs 12 cents.  Meaning 0.5 kWhr costs 0.5 * $0.12 = $0.06/hr  

$0.06/hr * 24 hr/day * 365 days/yr = $500 of electricity per year

In my mind, eventually a device that starts switching drives off and on in my mind could be POC's version of an ASIC. This could bring the power usage down to about 12W total since you'd still have 1 hard drive running continually, plus the device would use some tiny amount of power.

Point being, there is definitely financial incentive to create such a device, which would definitely sell to POC mining farms, and once this type of device for connecting these hard drives to the network is being made, I suspect it'll pretty widely used for plugging in a variable number of drives.

Back to how much energy POC uses vs POS, and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts, POC uses 500 extra Watts that means that POC uses 800 Watts.

800 W / 300W = approx 2.7 as much energy as POS.  So it's reasonable.

In other words POC2 uses 270% more energy than Proof of Stake.


Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work

Assume you go with the above assumption that you connect 50  hard drives to the computer, and each hard drive costs $100 each.  That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W.  Now let's pick a random Bitcoin miner.  The TerraMiner IV which to err on Bitcoin's side, let's say it costs $1,000 USD (I can find it on Amazon for $750 - http://www.amazon.com/CoinTerra-Terraminer-Iv/dp/B00JK64DXA but the original price was $1,200) and uses 2.1kW .

So $5000 worth of bitcoin miners = $5000 / $1,000 = 5 machines.  
5 machines equals 5* 2.1KW worth of energy = 10.5 kW.

So POW uses 10.5 kW of electricity for an equivalent investment POC uses .8 kW of electricity.


10.5/0.8 KW = 13.13 times

Which means that POW uses 13.13 more energy than POC.

The plus sides and reasons why POC beats POS though that POC is more decentralized, ASIC proof meaning even the little guy can mine, and more secure than POS, etc.  And no history key attack potential plus mining is a great way to get new people into crypto currency.  You can mine POC with no money spent buying coins first..  once we're doing 100s or 1000s of transactions, it'll be profitable for every day people to connect their extra hard drive space to the Burst network and join the network.  Once they have free coins, they are more likely to be long term adopters.

And if you need proof regarding the last point that getting miners to join the network will be easier.. go look at Burst's estimated network size:
http://burstcoin.eu/charts/estimated-network-size

It's barely profitable to mine because people are willing to contribute hard drive space toward earning 'free' coins.. meaning this will be a great way to get people interested in Proof of Capacity currencies in the future because they are ASIC proof.

Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.

13 X is nothing to write home about.  13000x would be!  130x would be somewhat interesting. it's not groundbreaking technology.  this comparison isn't that useful, POC has other aspects over POW that are more interesting.
13x means that POW will get better w.r.t. energy usage as ASIC chips get smaller.  POW won't because there's no control over HDD.  SSD will give it another leap since they use less energy over spinners.  but again, when ssd completely replaced spinners POW chips will be much smaller and more energy efficient anyway.
POC vs POW in terms of energy usage is not a "winning" comparison.

[Merick]

A different question:

Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW:

"Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?":
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982957.0

For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation...

But maybe we could get an idea.

Thank you.

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake

You still need a computer and hard drive running to power Proof of Stake... but let's say that you do add 50 3TB drives to that computer, you could split your plots up across all of these of hard drives, and the only turn on two hard drives at a time per block.  With POC2.. you'll only need to turn on 1 hard drives, one that stores signatures, one that stores the current scoop being read.

Otherwise, it'd consume 50 * 10 Watts per hard drive.  So this equals 500 Watts = 0.5 kW

1 kW*hr costs 12 cents.  Meaning 0.5 kWhr costs 0.5 * $0.12 = $0.06/hr  

$0.06/hr * 24 hr/day * 365 days/yr = $500 of electricity per year

In my mind, eventually a device that starts switching drives off and on in my mind could be POC's version of an ASIC. This could bring the power usage down to about 12W total since you'd still have 1 hard drive running continually, plus the device would use some tiny amount of power.

Point being, there is definitely financial incentive to create such a device, which would definitely sell to POC mining farms, and once this type of device for connecting these hard drives to the network is being made, I suspect it'll pretty widely used for plugging in a variable number of drives.

Back to how much energy POC uses vs POS, and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts, POC uses 500 extra Watts that means that POC uses 800 Watts.

800 W / 300W = approx 2.7 as much energy as POS.  So it's reasonable.

In other words POC2 uses 270% more energy than Proof of Stake.


Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work

Assume you go with the above assumption that you connect 50  hard drives to the computer, and each hard drive costs $100 each.  That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W.  Now let's pick a random Bitcoin miner.  The TerraMiner IV which to err on Bitcoin's side, let's say it costs $1,000 USD (I can find it on Amazon for $750 - http://www.amazon.com/CoinTerra-Terraminer-Iv/dp/B00JK64DXA but the original price was $1,200) and uses 2.1kW .

So $5000 worth of bitcoin miners = $5000 / $1,000 = 5 machines.  
5 machines equals 5* 2.1KW worth of energy = 10.5 kW.

So POW uses 10.5 kW of electricity for an equivalent investment POC uses .8 kW of electricity.


10.5/0.8 KW = 13.13 times

Which means that POW uses 13.13 more energy than POC.

The plus sides and reasons why POC beats POS though that POC is more decentralized, ASIC proof meaning even the little guy can mine, and more secure than POS, etc.  And no history key attack potential plus mining is a great way to get new people into crypto currency.  You can mine POC with no money spent buying coins first..  once we're doing 100s or 1000s of transactions, it'll be profitable for every day people to connect their extra hard drive space to the Burst network and join the network.  Once they have free coins, they are more likely to be long term adopters.

And if you need proof regarding the last point that getting miners to join the network will be easier.. go look at Burst's estimated network size:
http://burstcoin.eu/charts/estimated-network-size

It's barely profitable to mine because people are willing to contribute hard drive space toward earning 'free' coins.. meaning this will be a great way to get people interested in Proof of Capacity currencies in the future because they are ASIC proof.

Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.

13 X is nothing to write home about.  13000x would be!  130x would be somewhat interesting. it's not groundbreaking technology.  this comparison isn't that useful, POC has other aspects over POW that are more interesting.
13x means that POW will get better w.r.t. energy usage as ASIC chips get smaller.  POW won't because there's no control over HDD.  SSD will give it another leap since they use less energy over spinners.  but again, when ssd completely replaced spinners POW chips will be much smaller and more energy efficient anyway.
POC vs POW in terms of energy usage is not a "winning" comparison.

" and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts"

What PC uses 300 watts of power?

An I7 running 100% will only pull roughly 90watts (CPU).  POC only has the CPU at 100% for roughly 1-2min MAX per block.  During block resting time the PC only pulls 50-75 watts.  The only time a PC will ever pull 300+watts is if it has GPU's crunching away.  The entire comparison is based on a PC pulling 300watts, which is a nice number to talk about, but not even close to reality.

This number can be lowered even further by using CPU's that pull less power and are suited for a POC rig.

It's a nice comparison and full of detail, but the 300W assumption I think hurts the data.

[Irontiga]

A different question:

Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW:

"Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?":
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982957.0

For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation...

But maybe we could get an idea.

Thank you.

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake

You still need a computer and hard drive running to power Proof of Stake... but let's say that you do add 50 3TB drives to that computer, you could split your plots up across all of these of hard drives, and the only turn on two hard drives at a time per block.  With POC2.. you'll only need to turn on 1 hard drives, one that stores signatures, one that stores the current scoop being read.

Otherwise, it'd consume 50 * 10 Watts per hard drive.  So this equals 500 Watts = 0.5 kW

1 kW*hr costs 12 cents.  Meaning 0.5 kWhr costs 0.5 * $0.12 = $0.06/hr  

$0.06/hr * 24 hr/day * 365 days/yr = $500 of electricity per year

In my mind, eventually a device that starts switching drives off and on in my mind could be POC's version of an ASIC. This could bring the power usage down to about 12W total since you'd still have 1 hard drive running continually, plus the device would use some tiny amount of power.

Point being, there is definitely financial incentive to create such a device, which would definitely sell to POC mining farms, and once this type of device for connecting these hard drives to the network is being made, I suspect it'll pretty widely used for plugging in a variable number of drives.

Back to how much energy POC uses vs POS, and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts, POC uses 500 extra Watts that means that POC uses 800 Watts.

800 W / 300W = approx 2.7 as much energy as POS.  So it's reasonable.

In other words POC2 uses 270% more energy than Proof of Stake.


Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work

Assume you go with the above assumption that you connect 50  hard drives to the computer, and each hard drive costs $100 each.  That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W.  Now let's pick a random Bitcoin miner.  The TerraMiner IV which to err on Bitcoin's side, let's say it costs $1,000 USD (I can find it on Amazon for $750 - http://www.amazon.com/CoinTerra-Terraminer-Iv/dp/B00JK64DXA but the original price was $1,200) and uses 2.1kW .

So $5000 worth of bitcoin miners = $5000 / $1,000 = 5 machines.  
5 machines equals 5* 2.1KW worth of energy = 10.5 kW.

So POW uses 10.5 kW of electricity for an equivalent investment POC uses .8 kW of electricity.


10.5/0.8 KW = 13.13 times

Which means that POW uses 13.13 more energy than POC.

The plus sides and reasons why POC beats POS though that POC is more decentralized, ASIC proof meaning even the little guy can mine, and more secure than POS, etc.  And no history key attack potential plus mining is a great way to get new people into crypto currency.  You can mine POC with no money spent buying coins first..  once we're doing 100s or 1000s of transactions, it'll be profitable for every day people to connect their extra hard drive space to the Burst network and join the network.  Once they have free coins, they are more likely to be long term adopters.

And if you need proof regarding the last point that getting miners to join the network will be easier.. go look at Burst's estimated network size:
http://burstcoin.eu/charts/estimated-network-size

It's barely profitable to mine because people are willing to contribute hard drive space toward earning 'free' coins.. meaning this will be a great way to get people interested in Proof of Capacity currencies in the future because they are ASIC proof.

Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.

13 X is nothing to write home about.  13000x would be!  130x would be somewhat interesting. it's not groundbreaking technology.  this comparison isn't that useful, POC has other aspects over POW that are more interesting.
13x means that POW will get better w.r.t. energy usage as ASIC chips get smaller.  POW won't because there's no control over HDD.  SSD will give it another leap since they use less energy over spinners.  but again, when ssd completely replaced spinners POW chips will be much smaller and more energy efficient anyway.
POC vs POW in terms of energy usage is not a "winning" comparison.

" and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts"

What PC uses 300 watts of power?

An I7 running 100% will only pull roughly 90watts (CPU).  POC only has the CPU at 100% for roughly 1-2min MAX per block.  During block resting time the PC only pulls 50-75 watts.  The only time a PC will ever pull 300+watts is if it has GPU's crunching away.  The entire comparison is based on a PC pulling 300watts, which is a nice number to talk about, but not even close to reality.

This number can be lowered even further by using CPU's that pull less power and are suited for a POC rig.

It's a nice comparison and full of detail, but the 300W assumption I think hurts the data.

Yeah..that's is a calculation for a farm....Mobile CPU's(laptop) are way lower power than that, and man, some of the mini pc's for $100 could probably handle 12tb+ on less than 20 watts. Also, the biggest thing for me about Burst is that ANYONE will ALWAYS be able to mine. You can't beat spare hdd space. Also, low price won't stop miners, which then won't make 51% attack easier.

[Elmit]

Not bad:  Last 24 hour trade volume   416 287.39793760 BURST(179.06 USD)

https://block.burstcoin.info/as.php?as=14668748687827404894   (site by irontiga)

[katlogic]

Awesome comparison... Wondering when will POC2 release?

PoC2 is partially CPU/ASIC mineable (inverse hash lookup is inherently TMTO) up to certain ratio (depending on power efficiency, over 50% for ASIC). The power usage is considerably more compared to PoC1, but also scales better, solves the NaS problem through the PoW element etc.

[callmejack]

A different question:

Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW:

"Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?":
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982957.0

For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation...

But maybe we could get an idea.

Thank you.

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake

You still need a computer and hard drive running to power Proof of Stake... but let's say that you do add 50 3TB drives to that computer, you could split your plots up across all of these of hard drives, and the only turn on two hard drives at a time per block.  With POC2.. you'll only need to turn on 1 hard drives, one that stores signatures, one that stores the current scoop being read.

Otherwise, it'd consume 50 * 10 Watts per hard drive.  So this equals 500 Watts = 0.5 kW

1 kW*hr costs 12 cents.  Meaning 0.5 kWhr costs 0.5 * $0.12 = $0.06/hr  

$0.06/hr * 24 hr/day * 365 days/yr = $500 of electricity per year

In my mind, eventually a device that starts switching drives off and on in my mind could be POC's version of an ASIC. This could bring the power usage down to about 12W total since you'd still have 1 hard drive running continually, plus the device would use some tiny amount of power.

Point being, there is definitely financial incentive to create such a device, which would definitely sell to POC mining farms, and once this type of device for connecting these hard drives to the network is being made, I suspect it'll pretty widely used for plugging in a variable number of drives.

Back to how much energy POC uses vs POS, and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts, POC uses 500 extra Watts that means that POC uses 800 Watts.

800 W / 300W = approx 2.7 as much energy as POS.  So it's reasonable.

In other words POC2 uses 270% more energy than Proof of Stake.


Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work

Assume you go with the above assumption that you connect 50  hard drives to the computer, and each hard drive costs $100 each.  That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W.  Now let's pick a random Bitcoin miner.  The TerraMiner IV which to err on Bitcoin's side, let's say it costs $1,000 USD (I can find it on Amazon for $750 - http://www.amazon.com/CoinTerra-Terraminer-Iv/dp/B00JK64DXA but the original price was $1,200) and uses 2.1kW .

So $5000 worth of bitcoin miners = $5000 / $1,000 = 5 machines.  
5 machines equals 5* 2.1KW worth of energy = 10.5 kW.

So POW uses 10.5 kW of electricity for an equivalent investment POC uses .8 kW of electricity.


10.5/0.8 KW = 13.13 times

Which means that POW uses 13.13 more energy than POC.

The plus sides and reasons why POC beats POS though that POC is more decentralized, ASIC proof meaning even the little guy can mine, and more secure than POS, etc.  And no history key attack potential plus mining is a great way to get new people into crypto currency.  You can mine POC with no money spent buying coins first..  once we're doing 100s or 1000s of transactions, it'll be profitable for every day people to connect their extra hard drive space to the Burst network and join the network.  Once they have free coins, they are more likely to be long term adopters.

And if you need proof regarding the last point that getting miners to join the network will be easier.. go look at Burst's estimated network size:
http://burstcoin.eu/charts/estimated-network-size

It's barely profitable to mine because people are willing to contribute hard drive space toward earning 'free' coins.. meaning this will be a great way to get people interested in Proof of Capacity currencies in the future because they are ASIC proof.

Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.

13 X is nothing to write home about.  13000x would be!  130x would be somewhat interesting. it's not groundbreaking technology.  this comparison isn't that useful, POC has other aspects over POW that are more interesting.
13x means that POW will get better w.r.t. energy usage as ASIC chips get smaller.  POW won't because there's no control over HDD.  SSD will give it another leap since they use less energy over spinners.  but again, when ssd completely replaced spinners POW chips will be much smaller and more energy efficient anyway.
POC vs POW in terms of energy usage is not a "winning" comparison.

" and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts"

What PC uses 300 watts of power?

An I7 running 100% will only pull roughly 90watts (CPU).  POC only has the CPU at 100% for roughly 1-2min MAX per block.  During block resting time the PC only pulls 50-75 watts.  The only time a PC will ever pull 300+watts is if it has GPU's crunching away.  The entire comparison is based on a PC pulling 300watts, which is a nice number to talk about, but not even close to reality.

This number can be lowered even further by using CPU's that pull less power and are suited for a POC rig.

It's a nice comparison and full of detail, but the 300W assumption I think hurts the data.

Yeah..that's is a calculation for a farm....Mobile CPU's(laptop) are way lower power than that, and man, some of the mini pc's for $100 could probably handle 12tb+ on less than 20 watts. Also, the biggest thing for me about Burst is that ANYONE will ALWAYS be able to mine. You can't beat spare hdd space. Also, low price won't stop miners, which then won't make 51% attack easier.

in this whole discussion about future technologies i miss holographic storage devices completely and would like them to be included.
what if you can store hundreds tb of plots without any energy usage while idleing?
can someone familar with the numbers add this to the calculation please?

one of the companies officially working on this is akonia holographics (http://akoniaholographics.com/).
they got a in 2005 filed patent granted mid last year.
https://www.google.de/patents/US8786923
i think they required the time for the market to become ready for what they have.
if at some point you can use such devices in production energy costs for storage are almost zeroed out and you discuss about asic based miners cause your cpus cant handle the load.

[Hubus]

Would you mind removing this post? Based on bad numbers and I went back and rewrote it(version you have posted above it) 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982957.msg10799632#msg10799632

OK, did it - and quoted some of the following posts here, if you don't mind...

[haitch]

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work

Assume you go with the above assumption that you connect 50  hard drives to the computer, and each hard drive costs $100 each.  That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W.  Now let's pick a random Bitcoin miner.  The TerraMiner IV which to err on Bitcoin's side, let's say it costs $1,000 USD (I can find it on Amazon for $750 - http://www.amazon.com/CoinTerra-Terraminer-Iv/dp/B00JK64DXA but the original price was $1,200) and uses 2.1kW .

So $5000 worth of bitcoin miners = $5000 / $1,000 = 5 machines.  
5 machines equals 5* 2.1KW worth of energy = 10.5 kW.

So POW uses 10.5 kW of electricity for an equivalent investment POC uses .8 kW of electricity.


10.5/0.8 KW = 13.13 times

Which means that POW uses 13.13 more energy than POC.

Went through and edited the numbers, better?

I've got some problems with the numbers, and a bigger problem with something thats been totally overlooked.

The assumption that the "average" PC uses 300W has been raised earlier, so I'll skip that - but you have "That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W." That indicates a 16W load per drive 24*7. Looking at the specs of the drives I'm using - WD Reds - the spec sheet says 2.5 to 3.3W Idle, 3.3 - 4.5 active. Lets be generous and say that on average given the bursty nature of Burst - 4W average 24 * 7, so the assumed rate is 4x high. So actual PoW/PoC is more like 52 than 13.

The bigger issue I have is that you've only looked at cost of running the two competitors - but what about the income difference ?

Assuming those 50 HDD's are 3TB drives, we have (based on current difficulty and price)
Burst:
Income: 150TB = 28,613 Burst/Day = $12.44 /day
Cost: 0.2KW/H * 24 H * $0.12 KWH = $0.58 /day
Profit/loss:$11.86 / day

Bitcoin: Assumes 1.6TH from the Terraminer IV (Based on current difficulty / price - and BTC difficulty is increasing faster than Burst)
Income: $3.11 / TH * 8 TH = $24.88 / day
Cost: 5 * 2.1 KW/h * 24H * 0.12 KWH = $30.24
Profit/Loss: ($5.36) / day

So in PoW, with this particular miner, your ROI is .... Never. You're digging yourself deeper into a hole as soon as you turn it on. With PoC you ROI is "someday" depending on the capacity of the drives, but as long as its at least 150GB/drive - you make a profit and an ROI.

H.

[mczarnek]

Would you mind removing this post? Based on bad numbers and I went back and rewrote it(version you have posted above it) 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982957.msg10799632#msg10799632

OK, did it - and quoted some of the following posts here, if you don't mind...

Appreciate it Hubus!

13 X is nothing to write home about.  13000x would be!  130x would be somewhat interesting. it's not groundbreaking technology.  this comparison isn't that useful, POC has other aspects over POW that are more interesting.
13x means that POW will get better w.r.t. energy usage as ASIC chips get smaller.  POW won't because there's no control over HDD.  SSD will give it another leap since they use less energy over spinners.  but again, when ssd completely replaced spinners POW chips will be much smaller and more energy efficient anyway.
POC vs POW in terms of energy usage is not a "winning" comparison.

Yeah but Bitcoin ASICs are approaching the same limit that CPUs and GPUs are at and won't keep quickly getting more energy efficient or do more calculations per dollar spent on them.

Meanwhile memristors and holographic storage is coming out soon.. and lots of different potential technologies coming in the future.  Granted ferroelectric transistors also have some potential for CPUs and some other technologies there too.

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work

Assume you go with the above assumption that you connect 50  hard drives to the computer, and each hard drive costs $100 each.  That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W.  Now let's pick a random Bitcoin miner.  The TerraMiner IV which to err on Bitcoin's side, let's say it costs $1,000 USD (I can find it on Amazon for $750 - http://www.amazon.com/CoinTerra-Terraminer-Iv/dp/B00JK64DXA but the original price was $1,200) and uses 2.1kW .

So $5000 worth of bitcoin miners = $5000 / $1,000 = 5 machines. 
5 machines equals 5* 2.1KW worth of energy = 10.5 kW.

So POW uses 10.5 kW of electricity for an equivalent investment POC uses .8 kW of electricity.


10.5/0.8 KW = 13.13 times

Which means that POW uses 13.13 more energy than POC.

Went through and edited the numbers, better?

I've got some problems with the numbers, and a bigger problem with something thats been totally overlooked.

The assumption that the "average" PC uses 300W has been raised earlier, so I'll skip that - but you have "That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W." That indicates a 16W load per drive 24*7. Looking at the specs of the drives I'm using - WD Reds - the spec sheet says 2.5 to 3.3W Idle, 3.3 - 4.5 active. Lets be generous and say that on average given the bursty nature of Burst - 4W average 24 * 7, so the assumed rate is 4x high. So actual PoW/PoC is more like 52 than 13.

The bigger issue I have is that you've only looked at cost of running the two competitors - but what about the income difference ?

Assuming those 50 HDD's are 3TB drives, we have (based on current difficulty and price)
Burst:
Income: 150TB = 28,613 Burst/Day = $12.44 /day
Cost: 0.2KW/H * 24 H * $0.12 KWH = $0.58 /day
Profit/loss:$11.86 / day

Bitcoin: Assumes 1.6TH from the Terraminer IV (Based on current difficulty / price - and BTC difficulty is increasing faster than Burst)
Income: $3.11 / TH * 8 TH = $24.88 / day
Cost: 5 * 2.1 KW/h * 24H * 0.12 KWH = $30.24
Profit/Loss: ($5.36) / day

So in PoW, with this particular miner, your ROI is .... Never. You're digging yourself deeper into a hole as soon as you turn it on. With PoC you ROI is "someday" depending on the capacity of the drives, but as long as its at least 150GB/drive - you make a profit and an ROI.

H.

Excellent points!

[bensam1231]

Another example of a fastblock being eaten by the same person in a couple seconds...



Am I the only one that thinks this is weird?

[Hubus]

I don't know if someone read my message above, but I would still appreciate help on this mining error message:

connect function failed with error: 10060

Thank you

[ticote]

Would you mind removing this post? Based on bad numbers and I went back and rewrote it(version you have posted above it) 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982957.msg10799632#msg10799632

OK, did it - and quoted some of the following posts here, if you don't mind...

Appreciate it Hubus!

13 X is nothing to write home about.  13000x would be!  130x would be somewhat interesting. it's not groundbreaking technology.  this comparison isn't that useful, POC has other aspects over POW that are more interesting.
13x means that POW will get better w.r.t. energy usage as ASIC chips get smaller.  POW won't because there's no control over HDD.  SSD will give it another leap since they use less energy over spinners.  but again, when ssd completely replaced spinners POW chips will be much smaller and more energy efficient anyway.
POC vs POW in terms of energy usage is not a "winning" comparison.

Yeah but Bitcoin ASICs are approaching the same limit that CPUs and GPUs are at and won't keep quickly getting more energy efficient or do more calculations per dollar spent on them.

Meanwhile memristors and holographic storage is coming out soon.. and lots of different potential technologies coming in the future.  Granted ferroelectric transistors also have some potential for CPUs and some other technologies there too.

Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work

Assume you go with the above assumption that you connect 50  hard drives to the computer, and each hard drive costs $100 each.  That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W.  Now let's pick a random Bitcoin miner.  The TerraMiner IV which to err on Bitcoin's side, let's say it costs $1,000 USD (I can find it on Amazon for $750 - http://www.amazon.com/CoinTerra-Terraminer-Iv/dp/B00JK64DXA but the original price was $1,200) and uses 2.1kW .

So $5000 worth of bitcoin miners = $5000 / $1,000 = 5 machines. 
5 machines equals 5* 2.1KW worth of energy = 10.5 kW.

So POW uses 10.5 kW of electricity for an equivalent investment POC uses .8 kW of electricity.


10.5/0.8 KW = 13.13 times

Which means that POW uses 13.13 more energy than POC.

Went through and edited the numbers, better?

I've got some problems with the numbers, and a bigger problem with something thats been totally overlooked.

The assumption that the "average" PC uses 300W has been raised earlier, so I'll skip that - but you have "That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W." That indicates a 16W load per drive 24*7. Looking at the specs of the drives I'm using - WD Reds - the spec sheet says 2.5 to 3.3W Idle, 3.3 - 4.5 active. Lets be generous and say that on average given the bursty nature of Burst - 4W average 24 * 7, so the assumed rate is 4x high. So actual PoW/PoC is more like 52 than 13.

The bigger issue I have is that you've only looked at cost of running the two competitors - but what about the income difference ?

Assuming those 50 HDD's are 3TB drives, we have (based on current difficulty and price)
Burst:
Income: 150TB = 28,613 Burst/Day = $12.44 /day
Cost: 0.2KW/H * 24 H * $0.12 KWH = $0.58 /day
Profit/loss:$11.86 / day

Bitcoin: Assumes 1.6TH from the Terraminer IV (Based on current difficulty / price - and BTC difficulty is increasing faster than Burst)
Income: $3.11 / TH * 8 TH = $24.88 / day
Cost: 5 * 2.1 KW/h * 24H * 0.12 KWH = $30.24
Profit/Loss: ($5.36) / day

So in PoW, with this particular miner, your ROI is .... Never. You're digging yourself deeper into a hole as soon as you turn it on. With PoC you ROI is "someday" depending on the capacity of the drives, but as long as its at least 150GB/drive - you make a profit and an ROI.

H.

Excellent points!

I think that we are talking about BTC (6 years ols) and BURST (some months old) like if they are the same. 6 year ago, you can qet a block (50BTC)/day with a computer and you dont get almost any profit (remember the pizza for 10,000BTC (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137.0)). That´s a pizza (40$) for more that the total daily reward (7200BTC). Nowadays, the total reward is 2,518,880 BURST/day, that is about 1,000$.

So, we all are talking of differents things. BTC was a fairy distribution on early ages, like BUSRT, but as soon as it achieve value it become less fairy.

Let´s hope that BURST ditribution will become unfairy, because that will be good for BURST.

[Blago]

I don't know if someone read my message above, but I would still appreciate help on this mining error message:

connect function failed with error: 10060

Thank you

show config.

[bobafett]

I don't know if someone read my message above, but I would still appreciate help on this mining error message:

connect function failed with error: 10060

Thank you

i think i read in the past, that in blago miner you have to set usefastrcv false.

[crowetic]

-[http://burst.ninja pool announcement]-


-Stability updates pushed, been running strong.

-Fixes for lag issues pushed, been running strong. (let us know if you have any issue at all!)

-Cryptoglance support added (I have not tried this yet myself, but cat says it's cool, and I trust him.) We are the first and only BURST pool to support cryptoglance! http://cryptoglance.info/

-Reward distribution enhanced. Method of changing it easily implemented (our goal is to make it the most perfect reward distribution system)

Currently the payouts are based 60% off the left pie (current round, block finder gets most, then distribution down the ladder you can see.) and 40% from right pie (historical miner pie, the larger miners that contribute more, get a more steady larger payout, then distribution down the ladder you can see.

-UI updates coming soon! (I may show a preview if I won't get yelled at for it. *glances at tiga*)


Thank you!

[Hubus]

I don't know if someone read my message above, but I would still appreciate help on this mining error message:

connect function failed with error: 10060

Thank you

show config.

{
   "Mode" : "poolV2",

   "Server" : "178.62.39.204",
   "Port": 8121,

   "UpdaterAddr" : "178.62.39.204",
   "UpdaterPort": 8121,

   "InfoAddr" : "178.62.39.204",
   "InfoPort": 8125,

   "EnableProxy": true,
   "ProxyPort": 8126,

   "Paths":["C:\\ZZZ Burstcoin Mining\\plots\\"],
   "CacheSize" : 200000,

   "ShowMsg" : false,
   "ShowUpdates" : false,

   "UseSorting" : false,
   "Debug": false,

   "SendBestOnly": false,
   "TargetDeadline": 600000,

   "UseFastRcv" : false,
   "SendInterval": 200,
   "UpdateInterval": 2000,

   "UseLog" : true,
   "UseCleanMem" : true,
   "ShowWinner" : true,
   "SkipBadPlots" : true

}