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

[Elmit]

I am also proposing a 10% dev donation of each block's value. This will go to an address controlled by a trusted member of your community.
Your dev has quit. You do need to develop this coin. This is the perfect solution to this problem.
And it scales well. If the coin becomes popular, it will generate a massive dev fund, that you can use to do all sorts of funky things.

There is a problem, there is no "trusted member". However, BURST has the feature of ESCROW, with that we could manage "trust".

[bitladen]

I am also proposing a 10% dev donation of each block's value. This will go to an address controlled by a trusted member of your community.
Your dev has quit. You do need to develop this coin. This is the perfect solution to this problem.
And it scales well. If the coin becomes popular, it will generate a massive dev fund, that you can use to do all sorts of funky things.

There is a problem, there is no "trusted member". However, BURST has the feature of ESCROW, with that we could manage "trust".

Then a multisig, requiring multiple signatures to release funds. Not sure if burst has the option, will have to check

[bitladen]

From bitcoin wiki https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

Assuming ( this might not be the case ) that a burstcoin blockchain 51% attack would work about the same way as a bitcoin blockchain 51% attack, all you can do is to double spend your burst, so we would probably have to stop using burst until we make a new wallet that ignores your ip addresses, your burst addresses etc. for a period of time.  Then we'd go on with the chain from just before you attacked, and you will have to replot your devices cause we know what burst address was baked into the plot files used in the attack.  good luck plotting all that disk space again, it's costly in power and time.

we all have a copy of the blockchain on our harddisk as it looked before your attack, when your ips and burst addresses have been "banned" in a new release of mining software, we will start at that latest uncompromized block, and you would have to re-attack using drives plotted to other addresses than the ones you have used previously.  We might not be able to figure all the burst addresses you use, but it will probably be easy enough to figure most of them. Perhaps you have been clever and plotted each TB to a new address, but at least we can take out all the ones you used to generate blocks.

You don't fully understand, but you are on the right track.
You understand that in order for the attack to be performed, all blocks are mined by the same miner. Yes? This means that I still have the same hashpower, but the network only accepts my blocks and rejects the other blocks. During such attack it appears that the network hash halved its size, because the other half gets rejected.

Nobody is talking about changing historic blocks.
It's not my intent to double spend either. Though I could, and it would mean you getting BURST suspended from the exchanges. DEATH! I would do such thing only if the rewards become laughably low.

You have no way to "cancel" my blocks. I will have dumped the coin before exchanges update to your "revised" version of the wallet. Thus they can never accept such change, for obvious reasons. Nor would this stop me from receiving my money.

Then I can simply change ip and replot. But then again the exchanges would already be at the impossibilty of accepting your updated wallet.

And there's a small technicality too. Who's gonna do the wallet modifications? Your dev has quit.

And yes, I have done this before.

[Irontiga]

There is a problem, there is no "trusted member". However, BURST has the feature of ESCROW, with that we could manage "trust".

Then a multisig, requiring multiple signatures to release funds. Not sure if burst has the option, will have to check

1) Crowetic is trusted

2) We do have multisig functionality via at's.

[Elmit]

I think we heard now enough of what could happen and how it could be done.

Let's focus on how to implement solutions and bring up the coin again. Let's MOVE and not just talk.
I do hope that any solution will not require a re-plotting. Since BinLaden has the most plots I guess he will not like that either ;-)

Does Crow's document add anything useful to this situation?

[pinballdude]

There's one thing I must say, MINERS ARE IMPORTANT! If we don't make the network big enough, we must worry about things that we wouldn't have to with a larger network.

I still think we need to make BURST more attractive to miners, not less. Sitting doing what's been going on lately is not great, indecision causes nothing to get accomplished.

No matter what you feel of bitladen... He's right about the things he's said, and getting miners and usage for the coin are very important.

I used to believe the model of BURST was perfect, but the more I see things happening and the more I think about it, the more I think it's in great planning, but only in a perfect scenario could it work as intended.

I fear that without changes and attraction of miners, the network will continue to shrink. As we've seen, there are miners quitting due to POWER, which is crazy with a coin that barely uses more power than PoS. This trend cannot continue.

If security is important to anyone, they're going to understand why miners are important.

Even the fact that someone getting 51% at all is possible, should be concerning. The next steps we take to resolve this are critical, what are they?

I want to hear suggestions, then I'll post mine. I know the idea may not be extremely popular, but I challenge anyone to come up with a counter proposal. We will gladly look at all options.

I take it you refer to my solution, as being the only one proposed thus far.

I request the reward increase and it's proportionality to the hashpower.
Currently, the incentive is to mine here FIRST. As you would get lots of coin for cheap, and so did the first miners. As a result, there is no incentive to mine here one year later (NOW). So even if you did mine here first, and held to the coin, hoping its value will go 100x - which it didn't, it went more like (1/10)x - there will soon not be enough hashpower to guarantee your funds, so you will end up holding ZERO.

This will fix the following.
1. miners will have incentive to mine here ANYTIME - including NOW. And not just at coin launch.
Therefore hashrate will go up, and the holdings will be protected
2. price could go down (but it's going down right now anyway), but as far as miners dumping are concerned, they will not want to dump below their mining costs. Should it go below that, it is safe to say that the holders are dumping. The cheap coin released in the first months of this coin is to blame, or in other words your reward structure. But we will have to see how this unfolds.
BTW, considering current mining costs, does it make any sense that miners could be dumping right now. I get a lot of accusations of this. But do the math. Would it make any sense for me to dump at this price? It is the holders that are dumping, no doubt.
3. volume will go up. which the healthy thing to have.

If you don't like my solution, then you holders should pump the price, it will have the same effects as above. But if you are going to do it, what are you waiting for? What have you been doing for the past year? I find it hard to believe that you ever will, as long as you're the only ones holding this coin.

I am also proposing a 10% dev donation of each block's value. This will go to an address controlled by a trusted member of your community.
Your dev has quit. You do need to develop this coin. This is the perfect solution to this problem.
And it scales well. If the coin becomes popular, it will generate a massive dev fund, that you can use to do all sorts of funky things.

Finally, I am volunteering to make the above mentioned changes to the daemon, should you ever agree to them. And possibly further development and promotion of this coin.  And just to make it clear, I do not require any payment for this.
Yes, I do mine it, and the changes will hopefully cover my costs. But keep in mind, I still only have 25% of the hashpower. 75% of the rewards will go to the rest of the mining community. And it's expected that as a result I will no longer hold 25%, but less. Not due to my capacity shrinking, but due to network size growing.


PS: I would throw in my other projects involving this coin, namely a highly efficient pool, new mining protocol (similar to stratum - even better, i'd have to say), client code for this protocol, and a dcct port for windows.  

That is if you accept my proposal.
Thus far you've only been hostile towards me, you cannot expect any contribution from me before I see an act of good faith on your behalf.

Yes, don't bother to remind me that I'm an egomaniac, who thinks it's superior to everybody else.
As far as this coin is concerned, this is true. 25% of the hashpower says I am. and 51% would make it's all mine. Now if you'd rather be against me, suit yourself.

reg. miners :

The early miners ( i'm not one of the earliest ) they took on a lot more risk that you ever did, and they have been paid for that. BURST was new and flaky and just setting up mining and plotting was a headache, they built the docs, the pools and the community.. they crashed their operating systems, they paved the way for we that followed. They have taken lots of risk and put in a lot of work. I don't think it is the least bit fair to steal their burst and give them some other kind of burst in  replacement. If you want another incentive plan, create a new burst with your modifications and let people willingly shift to that one, forcing a changed coin on the existing community is not fair imo, it destroys all trust in you. If you don't belive in keeping promises, we can only deal with you out of fear.

reg. developer fund :

I am in principle for some kind of organization that funds development and is paid for by people - but it has to be voluntary,  and the owners of BURST never agreed that they should pay taxes to a development fund. It would be a major change in the state of affairs to enforce a fee per transaction that go to a development fund.

Also, a development fund where the usage of funds is not decentralized, needs someone in control to make spending decisions. The moment you set that up, you'll have government goons and criminals trying to get at the guys in control and either try to take over the control, or to steal the control. Does not work very well. Crypto currencies is all about decentralized solutions where you cannot attack a centralized point of failure or gain control by compromizing a centralized server.


However, you could set up a virtual company that control a BURST address, that people can voluntarily send fees to, and that company could be centralized controlled and could pay for development in the BURST recieved from donations. You could even add to the wallets, a field where 1 BURST is per default sent to the development fund per transaction, but the end user should have an easy way of opting out , otherwise it's not voluntary, it's stealing, especially if there are users out there who disagree with the new tax.  The setup might be expanded so that it was possible to register a fund on the chain, and so that the user could select what fund (or none) is being donated to, when doing transactions.  a fund setup could be recieving BURST address, name, short description, website url or whatever.  the user choice could then be a list of names, with the most popular fund on top.


But don't force change onto the community using a 51% attack. Or be prepared to have to fend off a lot of people who believe you are a thief and a criminal, especially if you ever change a transaction. With anyone in control, burst degenerates to a normal centralized bank. The one in control will have governments and thugs all trying to go come steal his control away, to tax him, to claim protection money, whatever.... Perhaps even users who find that the attack is a violation of NAP and thus find it morally okay to come after you, will start to hunt you down. You will not be safe.  ( this is not a threat, i would not come after you, i'd just start an originalBURST starting from somewhere on the chain before the attack). My money would then be in both BURST and originalBURST but originalBURST would probably have a list of burst addresses banned for generating blocks due to involvment in the 51% attack.

[bitladen]

But don't force change onto the community using a 51% attack. Or be prepared to have to fend off a lot of people who believe you are a thief and a criminal, especially if you ever change a transaction. With anyone in control, burst degenerates to a normal centralized bank. The one in control will have governments and thugs all trying to go come steal his control away, to tax him, to claim protection money, whatever.... Perhaps even users who find that the attack is a violation of NAP and thus find it morally okay to come after you, will start to hunt you down. You will not be safe.  ( this is not a threat, i would not come after you, i'd just start an originalBURST starting from somewhere on the chain before the attack). My money would then be in both BURST and originalBURST but originalBURST would probably have a list of burst addresses banned for generating blocks due to involvment in the 51% attack.

That's what you get for not having hashpower. Don't blaim me, I'm just the messenger. Yet, these are the rules of the cryptogame. As such you should encourage decentralized hashpower. Which requires financial incentive.

You have to understand that the whole security of your funds relies on the hashpower. This is in the whitepaper of bitcoin. Not something I'm making up.

P.S. I just realized what you said. HAHAHA. haven't they already "hunted" me down all this time? I can assure you that my identity is very well concealed. But don't take my word for it, give it a try, uncover me. It's fun though, you are technically threatening authority intervention on a DECENTRALIZED currency. You have to see the irony in this. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the crypto community opposes - not necessarily illegally - but opposes the authorities.

[pinballdude]

From bitcoin wiki https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

Assuming ( this might not be the case ) that a burstcoin blockchain 51% attack would work about the same way as a bitcoin blockchain 51% attack, all you can do is to double spend your burst, so we would probably have to stop using burst until we make a new wallet that ignores your ip addresses, your burst addresses etc. for a period of time.  Then we'd go on with the chain from just before you attacked, and you will have to replot your devices cause we know what burst address was baked into the plot files used in the attack.  good luck plotting all that disk space again, it's costly in power and time.

we all have a copy of the blockchain on our harddisk as it looked before your attack, when your ips and burst addresses have been "banned" in a new release of mining software, we will start at that latest uncompromized block, and you would have to re-attack using drives plotted to other addresses than the ones you have used previously.  We might not be able to figure all the burst addresses you use, but it will probably be easy enough to figure most of them. Perhaps you have been clever and plotted each TB to a new address, but at least we can take out all the ones you used to generate blocks.

You don't fully understand, but you are on the right track.
You understand that in order for the attack to be performed, all blocks are mined by the same miner. Yes? This means that I still have the same hashpower, but the network only accepts my blocks and rejects the other blocks. During such attack it appears that the network hash halved its size, because the other half gets rejected.

Nobody is talking about changing historic blocks.
It's not my intent to double spend either. Though I could, and it would mean you getting BURST suspended from the exchanges. DEATH! I would do such thing only if the rewards become laughably low.

You have no way to "cancel" my blocks. I will have dumped the coin before exchanges update to your "revised" version of the wallet. Thus they can never accept such change, for obvious reasons. Nor would this stop me from receiving my money.

Then I can simply change ip and replot. But then again the exchanges would already be at the impossibilty of accepting your updated wallet.

And there's a small technicality too. Who's gonna do the wallet modifications? Your dev has quit.

And yes, I have done this before.

Your investment in plotted hardware must be kinda on the high side, or perhaps you are bluffing, who knows.

Can you document somehow the size of the total plots that you control?

If you get to near 51% we could ask the exchanges to suspend burst due to risk of an attack, then it becomes a waiting game. How much does it cost you per day to have those disks spinning?   My cost is in the single digit dollars for my 60TB or whatever, but i gather 50 times more is an annoying cost.. I can afford to wait for a while until we update the software to throw you out.  people can of course choose (i am a voulentarist, will not force anything upon anyone) between a version that will trade with a guy that openly threthens a 51% attack, and then a version that blocks him out. You would likely have to replot, the exchanges would likely choose the wallet that exludes your plotted addresses. re-plotting will add to your expenses. While we can use our old plots.

[bitladen]

Your investment in plotted hardware must be kinda on the high side, or perhaps you are bluffing, who knows.

Can you document somehow the size of the total plots that you control?

feel free to inspect the blockchain

If you get to near 51% we could ask the exchanges to suspend burst due to risk of an attack, then it becomes a waiting game. How much does it cost you per day to have those disks spinning?   My cost is in the single digit dollars for my 60TB or whatever, but i gather 50 times more is an annoying cost.. I can afford to wait for a while until we update the software to throw you out.  people can of course choose (i am a voulentarist, will not force anything upon anyone) between a version that will trade with a guy that openly threthens a 51% attack, and then a version that blocks him out. You would likely have to replot, the exchanges would likely choose the wallet that exludes your plotted addresses. re-plotting will add to your expenses. While we can use our old plots.

I can always replot. And if you all decide to kill the coin, I think my point is well made. You are in the process of killing it as of now.

Again don't blaim me. YOU CHOSE not to have hashpower. I just deliver the consequences of your actions.

And don't be concerned with my costs, that's my own business, and I chose not to make it public knowledge.
And don't speculate of the costs of a replot either. Ban my address, then you will see how fast I can replot. Oh wait, the only person who knows how to do that and still is active on this thread is me.

[crowetic]

I don't think doing a bunch of direct arguing here is a great plan. Bitladen has already said he doesn't WANT to do this, and isn't using it as any way to "enforce" the community into taking his side. What we should really do here first, is take a look at what is going on currently, with the current system, and decide whether we all think that the coin will last in this way...

How many miners have quit already? Does it matter to them that the coin doesn't cost that much to mine? Doesn't seem like it. If they aren't making anything, there is no incentive to mine the coin. We need to give this incentive, anyone disagree?

In order to make the current system work the way it should, there would have to be major money going into the coin to get the price where it should be. Can anyone do this? Does anyone have the money to get the coin to the price where it would be affective to mine? I for one do not, I wish I did, but I do not.

I have myself and quite a few family members invested into this coin. Do I believe that changing the structure breaches some 'contract'? No, I do not. What I worry more about, is the coin getting to a point where people just refuse to mine it, then we don't even have a network with which to run our outstanding technology. What do we do then? Then getting some use for the coin that will bring value to it is pointless.

I believe what is most important here is keeping the coin alive, I also believe that miners will continue to quit (aside from the few that just support the network and aren't here for monetary reward, which isn't THAT high of a number.) unless we DO SOMETHING. What I'm trying to do here, is get SUGGESTIONS.

If you believe that without changes, the coin will succeed, tell me WHY you think this, and give things that you think will happen in order to prove this. If you believe there should be modifications, tell me WHAT those are, and why you think those would work.

IMO, I believe that the idea bitladen has set forth, is a good one, the dev fund can be negotiated and if we decide to do that in another fashion, that's whatever, but honestly everyone SAYS they will support the development, but how many actually DID? In my experience I've seen very few donations. You can think of it like a tax if you'd like, but being able to KEEP a dev team would be MUCH easier with the ability to pay them. Agree?

I think also, that without any core developer at all, the coin will sit for too long, there are many people in the crypto community that are FAST PACED, and if we don't keep up, we will fall behind, and falling behind to the community is the same as dying.

These are all my opinioins, so feel free to contradict them with your own if you would like.

My paper does have a lot to do with the many discussions I have had with bitladen, and the fact that he doesn't want this coin to be unsuccessful. No matter your view on how he does things, can any of you say that you're not only CAPABLE, but WILLING to take on BURST for FREE? If anyone else here is capable, willing, and able to help with the core development of the coin, provide a roadmap that will be done, be active, and work together with us to help keep things going in a positive direction, please let me know. If not, do you really believe that having the core development done by him would cause more problems than not having anyone doing it? I highly doubt that.

Not only this, the plan includes making a VERY viable use for BURST, and something that could very easily become EXTREMELY popular. This would be something that I truly believe would be able to further the coin's network and value absolutely.

Also, this doesn't have to be a permanent 'takeover', if the main developer comes back, wants to take over again, or another developer comes along that is WILLING and ABLE to, bitladen has already said that he would have no problem with letting that happen. So, you see, this isn't about him, this is truly about the coin, and wanting to see the best mining style become as popular as we know it can be, and the most valuable tech become used and cherished as much as some people here cherish it.

The details are to be discussed, but the overall idea is solid, and if you disagree, I would truly like to see why.

Bitcoin's model, only worked for bitcoin (and even that is up for debate) because the growth kept up. The only reason it did was because it was the ONLY coin like it, and the only tech like it at the time, so it became the 'one and only'. Now, in the days with multiple altcoins coming out on literally a daily basis, we must devise a model that works for this. I truly believe that a solid return for miners, will keep them coming. This is coming from one of the original BURST miners, one of the original pool owners, and one of the original true believers in the coin.

I used to fully support the inflationary model that is Bitcoin and BURST, but the more I see what is actually happening VS what we thought would, the more I see that a change is necessary. Altcoins don't have the cult following bitcoin does, and the multitudes cause the growth to be VERY difficult to keep up with the dropping reward. Thus we get what we're seeing today, drop in reward, drop in price, and thus, drop in network hashrate. All of these things combine, and they will most likely continue (my opinions still) unless we make a pretty drastic change to the way things work.

I wouldn't be posting this if I didn't truly believe it. The growth of BURST didn't keep up, now we're here, and before the coin loses any more of its network, (because 30TB makes you a few bucks a month and it is to the point that even running HARD DRIVES isn't cost effective, we've got a problem.) we make a decision, get development moving, and make the things happen that will reverse this problem.

Like I keep saying. If there is a better idea out there, or if you support the original model, please prove to everyone why and how it will work. But it is my truly honest opinion that we can see right in front of us, the model failing. Am I wrong? Why?

[pinballdude]

Your investment in plotted hardware must be kinda on the high side, or perhaps you are bluffing, who knows.

Can you document somehow the size of the total plots that you control?

feel free to inspect the blockchain

If you get to near 51% we could ask the exchanges to suspend burst due to risk of an attack, then it becomes a waiting game. How much does it cost you per day to have those disks spinning?   My cost is in the single digit dollars for my 60TB or whatever, but i gather 50 times more is an annoying cost.. I can afford to wait for a while until we update the software to throw you out.  people can of course choose (i am a voulentarist, will not force anything upon anyone) between a version that will trade with a guy that openly threthens a 51% attack, and then a version that blocks him out. You would likely have to replot, the exchanges would likely choose the wallet that exludes your plotted addresses. re-plotting will add to your expenses. While we can use our old plots.

I can always replot. And if you all decide to kill the coin, I think my point is well made. You are in the process of killing it as of now.

Again don't blaim me. YOU CHOSE not to have hashpower. I just deliver the consequences of your actions.

And don't be concerned with my costs, that's my own business, and I chose not to make it public knowledge.
And don't speculate of the costs of a replot either. Ban my address, then you will see how fast I can replot. Oh wait, the only person who knows how to do that and still is active on this thread is me.

I have read all your posts today.

It is my personal impression that you do not believe in voluntary interaction, but instead believe that it is okay to force people to do something if you have superior power, that it is okay to steal if you have a knife and the victim do not have one. That it is okay to write a contract and then rewrite it, if you find  yourself in a situation where your physical power is bigger than the one you had an agreement with.  This makes you totally untrustworthy in my view, your word is worth nothing, because as soon as you have some kind of leverage, you will not hold your worth, unless you clearly see immediate threads of retaliation. We simply work in different ways.

I never threathen people unless it is because they have taken something that was mine, and i want it back.  I also do not threathen people i can esaily harm, without it having any consequences for me.

However, it is just words, you have never actually done anything bad until now. Your threat of a 51% attack has probably scared away a lot of burst owners, hence some of the price softness, but probably not so much miners, as the large part of cost of mining is upforont. Once you have the setup running, running costs are pretty small. The major risk is if you get 51% and miners loose all their mined burst, and they have to replot to some other currency.

so...

my reaction to all this is that i will increase my mining power, that is the best reaction i can think of.

If i buy burst you make more when selling your mined coins right after you have mined them. I don't want that. I want burst to gain features and usefulness for end users. With that in place, everything else will follow.

If i launch a new burst with your plots blocked i will be using threaths and bullying myself, i would not do that. Only if you actually succeed with an attack and get caught blocking out other people's blocks or transactions, then i will make a place that people can chose to go to, if they don't like what you did to BURST

If i sell my burst, i risk selling it to you. You might be doing all this just to create fear and to buy up burst on the cheap. After all it's cheaper buying than mining, all costs inclusive.

but... if i buy some more terabytes, you will have to do the same, to succeed your attack. So that i will do. I'll add 10TB within a month, and probably 16TB a month after that, until further notice, so I advice you budget for at least that increase too.

As a precaution against someone being a dick in a 51% attack i will plot to new addresses, i propose you do the same to protect you from being easily blocked, some other dick might block you even before you ever attempted an attack, and that is not fair imo.

Anyone else who thinks bitladen is bullying and not living up to the non-agression-principle, should consider similar action.. beef up your mining, mine some easy coins now, where the net size is low.

When bitladen go away, or ceases threathening with forcing changes to burst using brute force and a 51% attack, the price will rise and your investment might pay off.

On a side note, considering the work i spent just getting 60 or so TB mining in a stable fashion, it is good craftmanship to get 1PB rolling. I understand why you put in some effort on the miner and plotter part of things, with 1TB+, there are some savings if you can have one box mining more terabytes fast enough. I am running a modified version of the java miner, but those modifications were mostly just to get it working at all, i started out on windows 7, and that OS self destructs when you start mining tens of terabytes.

[notabeliever]

Is it possible to add staking? Could hash power come from a staking wallet?

[haitch]

Crow, I've worked with you on a number of projects, but these ideas I can't support.

1) BitLaden as the dev. No. He can't threaten to destroy the coin one day then become the main dev the next.
2) Fundamental changes to the block reward . No. Bitladen wants them to enrich himself.
3) 10% block tax to fund devs. NO. If a dev believes in this coin, buy some and profit on their work to increase the value.

As a side note. the Dev team have setup a server for the community to discuss Burst, Crypto currencies, life in general ... head over to chat.burst-team.us to sign up and join in.

H.

[crowetic]

Crow, I've worked with you on a number of projects, but these ideas I can't support.

1) BitLaden as the dev. No. He can't threaten to destroy the coin one day then become the main dev the next.
2) Fundamental changes to the block reward . No. Bitladen wants them to enrich himself.
3) 10% block tax to fund devs. NO. If a dev believes in this coin, buy some and profit on their work to increase the value.

As a side note. the Dev team have setup a server for the community to discuss Burst, Crypto currencies, life in general ... head over to chat.burst-team.us to sign up and join in.

H.

I don't take these as threats, and I also think that if he's doing it in public, it is to bring awareness. If someone truly wanted to do this to simply attack the coin, why would they talk about it openly? I think he has an interesting way of telling us that the coin is great, and that he doesn't want it to go under, but it will if we don't make changes. I guess it is about interpretation. But I still say, then WHO? Who will do this? Can do it? I don't even know where to start looking for someone to take over a project of this magnitude. Do you? I welcome suggestions here absolutely.

Okay, then what do we do to keep miners from walking off. Even running my pool is costing me out of pocket. Is this something that can continue forever? Also, like bitladen said, he's not the entire network, this would benefit everyone the same. Even the holders, because I truly believe it would make the coin immensely more popular. Miners are the foundation, bring them, give use to the coin, and the rest follows. Losing miners, and having things cost more than they are making, is bad.

The tax is up for discussion, but you yourself should see how much willingness there is to donate to a project that people call innovative and seemingly want to hold forever, and without these donations, we are expected to come up with the money for promotion, etc from our own pockets? I don't see how this is more fair.


Definitely, everyone join the chat, look forward to seeing you all there.

I appreciate the opinions Haitch, and you know I respect you greatly, but I would also like to see some counter-suggestions and something we could put into play ASAP. Waiting around for the original dev to return I just don't think is a viable option, do you?

[haitch]

Crow, I pay out of my own pocket for the current Team server, I'm about to double my out of pocket cost with the the upgrade. I'm working on a bank/anonymous payment service, others are working on other tools. Increasing the block reward will not increase it's value, it'll increase what BitLaden can earn from his dumping. We need to increase the utility of this coin to increase it's value - Giving a botnet master even more reward will do nothing for it's value.

H.

[crowetic]

Crow, I pay out of my own pocket for the current Team server, I'm about to double my out of pocket cost with the the upgrade. I'm working on a bank/anonymous payment service, others are working on other tools. Increasing the block reward will not increase it's value, it'll increase what BitLaden can earn from his dumping. We need to increase the utility of this coin to increase it's value - Giving a botnet master even more reward will do nothing for it's value.

H.

I'm not suggesting a value increase. I'm suggesting an increase in overall usage and network size. It would benefit all miners, not just bitladen. Thus more would join.

I don't think that you paying out of pocket for all of these things is right either. I think a decentralized project with people willing to set up tools and pools for, should be chipped in from the community. Do you find it fair that you have to pay these things out of your pocket for use of everyone else when they don't have to and this will never bring money back to you in any way?

Do you find it unfair that pools have fees associated? With which they're supposed to be able to pay their operating costs? Isn't the overall fee essentially the same idea but just to keep the overall coin being developed instead?

I think also that I did the most honorable thing and converted my pool fee to an asset, and I even run a 30TB miner for the asset as well, this asset is solely for the benefit of the community, and I have thus far not made a profit at all from it. I am not complaining about this, but I'm saying it isn't sustainable forever unless there's growth in one way or another, and the only way to keep the current model working, is by immense growth, which hasn't been happening.

I just have yet to see another proposed idea that makes more overall sense. It solves the issue of the network decrease, it solves the issue of the usage of the coin (which I know most people haven't seen yet, but they will soon when I edit my paper) and it solves the issue of the growth not matching up with the decline in reward and thus causing overall issues we're seeing now.

I don't know what else can be done, but I'm ready to hear other suggestions, unless you believe that everything is perfectly fine the way it is. I for one see the decline in all of the important things, as an issue. There have been no other whole suggestions that would be able to solve these issues.

Regardless of the person doing it, it is an open source project, and we could even implement a review system of the code before it is posted to the main git, or whatever, if trust of the developer is really the issue.

Being an open source project, it is easily reviewed to see if there are things going on that aren't what are said.

I just don't see the other options we have here? Unless you think everything is fine with the things that have been going on lately, and there's no issue here at all, what exactly should we do?

[pinballdude]

I don't think doing a bunch of direct arguing here is a great plan. Bitladen has already said he doesn't WANT to do this, and isn't using it as any way to "enforce" the community into taking his side. What we should really do here first, is take a look at what is going on currently, with the current system, and decide whether we all think that the coin will last in this way...

How many miners have quit already? Does it matter to them that the coin doesn't cost that much to mine? Doesn't seem like it. If they aren't making anything, there is no incentive to mine the coin. We need to give this incentive, anyone disagree?

In order to make the current system work the way it should, there would have to be major money going into the coin to get the price where it should be. Can anyone do this? Does anyone have the money to get the coin to the price where it would be affective to mine? I for one do not, I wish I did, but I do not.

I have myself and quite a few family members invested into this coin. Do I believe that changing the structure breaches some 'contract'? No, I do not. What I worry more about, is the coin getting to a point where people just refuse to mine it, then we don't even have a network with which to run our outstanding technology. What do we do then? Then getting some use for the coin that will bring value to it is pointless.

I believe what is most important here is keeping the coin alive, I also believe that miners will continue to quit (aside from the few that just support the network and aren't here for monetary reward, which isn't THAT high of a number.) unless we DO SOMETHING. What I'm trying to do here, is get SUGGESTIONS.

If you believe that without changes, the coin will succeed, tell me WHY you think this, and give things that you think will happen in order to prove this. If you believe there should be modifications, tell me WHAT those are, and why you think those would work.

IMO, I believe that the idea bitladen has set forth, is a good one, the dev fund can be negotiated and if we decide to do that in another fashion, that's whatever, but honestly everyone SAYS they will support the development, but how many actually DID? In my experience I've seen very few donations. You can think of it like a tax if you'd like, but being able to KEEP a dev team would be MUCH easier with the ability to pay them. Agree?

I think also, that without any core developer at all, the coin will sit for too long, there are many people in the crypto community that are FAST PACED, and if we don't keep up, we will fall behind, and falling behind to the community is the same as dying.

These are all my opinioins, so feel free to contradict them with your own if you would like.

My paper does have a lot to do with the many discussions I have had with bitladen, and the fact that he doesn't want this coin to be unsuccessful. No matter your view on how he does things, can any of you say that you're not only CAPABLE, but WILLING to take on BURST for FREE? If anyone else here is capable, willing, and able to help with the core development of the coin, provide a roadmap that will be done, be active, and work together with us to help keep things going in a positive direction, please let me know. If not, do you really believe that having the core development done by him would cause more problems than not having anyone doing it? I highly doubt that.

Not only this, the plan includes making a VERY viable use for BURST, and something that could very easily become EXTREMELY popular. This would be something that I truly believe would be able to further the coin's network and value absolutely.

Also, this doesn't have to be a permanent 'takeover', if the main developer comes back, wants to take over again, or another developer comes along that is WILLING and ABLE to, bitladen has already said that he would have no problem with letting that happen. So, you see, this isn't about him, this is truly about the coin, and wanting to see the best mining style become as popular as we know it can be, and the most valuable tech become used and cherished as much as some people here cherish it.

The details are to be discussed, but the overall idea is solid, and if you disagree, I would truly like to see why.

Bitcoin's model, only worked for bitcoin (and even that is up for debate) because the growth kept up. The only reason it did was because it was the ONLY coin like it, and the only tech like it at the time, so it became the 'one and only'. Now, in the days with multiple altcoins coming out on literally a daily basis, we must devise a model that works for this. I truly believe that a solid return for miners, will keep them coming. This is coming from one of the original BURST miners, one of the original pool owners, and one of the original true believers in the coin.

I used to fully support the inflationary model that is Bitcoin and BURST, but the more I see what is actually happening VS what we thought would, the more I see that a change is necessary. Altcoins don't have the cult following bitcoin does, and the multitudes cause the growth to be VERY difficult to keep up with the dropping reward. Thus we get what we're seeing today, drop in reward, drop in price, and thus, drop in network hashrate. All of these things combine, and they will most likely continue (my opinions still) unless we make a pretty drastic change to the way things work.

I wouldn't be posting this if I didn't truly believe it. The growth of BURST didn't keep up, now we're here, and before the coin loses any more of its network, (because 30TB makes you a few bucks a month and it is to the point that even running HARD DRIVES isn't cost effective, we've got a problem.) we make a decision, get development moving, and make the things happen that will reverse this problem.

Like I keep saying. If there is a better idea out there, or if you support the original model, please prove to everyone why and how it will work. But it is my truly honest opinion that we can see right in front of us, the model failing. Am I wrong? Why?

I really have to get a few hours sleep , so these comments are shortish, your post deserves more time than i have right now

If a miner that mines 10% of burst disappears overnight, then the remaining miners will see one thing happen :

- they will get 10% more BURST coins because they will hit more blocks than before


if the remaining miners are in for the long haul, they are not selling their BURST because they believe BURST will be worth more in the distant future.
if the miner that quit, stopped mining because he was selling his mined coins to pay for the mining expenses, then his departure will reduce the sell pressure on burst with 10% a day.

a 10% reduction of offer, will of course make the price rise somewhat. BURST will stabilize at a higher price.

so miners leaving burst will actually make the remaining miners richer both due to a bigger reward per miner, and also due to the burst price probably rising or not falling as much as otherwise.

However, many miners both existing and potential, look at the exchange value of the reward, so when burst price go down, network size will trend downward to wherever there is a balance once again.

Also, when the price go up, network size will rise toward a new point where things balance again


We should not panic if network size go down a lot, fast, without burst price first having gone down. It just means the remaining miners will make more for a while, until the better payoff has attracted new miners to replace the ones who went away.

we should not panic if network size go down due to burst going down in price, as that is a natural adjustment actually a feature of the system.  If burst market cap is 100K usd, we don't need a network size protecting against a 10 million USD attack, as nobody would spend 10 million to steal 100K.


If you want to incentivice miners, you need to increase the ROI on mining. The most sustainable increase must be a burst that is used for transactions, for commerce for whatever we can think up. If we just pay the miners more BURST, and take those BURST from existing holders or people who do transactions, we are making the same mistake central banks do, they try to print money to get problems to go away, and that makes longterm holders dump the currency, cause it is no longer a store of value.

If we incentivice miners by pumping the burst price, it will be a short term incentive. If we incentivice by making more people demand burst because they have wallets and can trade and whatnot, then we have a sustainable incentive.  Once you make a burst cash register tablet app that allows vendors to take burst easily, that software is there for a long time, and will keep people using burst, will keep demand and volume at a higher level.

I agree with bitladen that we need development. I don't think we need a dictatorial development leader, rather, we need to put in place some simple rules enabling developers to submit fixes and enhancements, and users to submit feature requests etc. Github already has this in place, all that is needed is some basic agreed upon ways to move a change from idea to discussion to implementation to test to integration to relase.

If developers don't show up magically, we have to put in place a system that enables users to voluntarily incentivise or sponsor the changes they care most about.  Or help put together entrepeneurs, investors and developers and people with the right ideas, to code stuff supporting burst.

By the way, is it true that the original dev has left the project? Do anyone have access to the repository to a degree where they can merge in pull requests and the like? Are we in communication with the original dev? I would rather expand the core dev group from one to a few more, and have the newcomers create the structure and process descriptions needed, and then start help the original dev with some admin work. Original dev should not be thrown out, he should rather just have some help in his 1-man core developers group, and be asked to share the ability to merge pull requests for instance.


looking way forward, we need a coin that works even with no block reward, and just transaction fees. When we get there, i do agree with bitladen that no one knows what the correct minimal transaction fee is. Perhaps 1 BURST is too little, perhaps nobody at all wants to mine burst for 1 BURST per transaction, i guess the people who own burst might mine just to not have a total writeoff, even if it was not profitable.  Perhaps 1 BURST is way too much, if burst gains a huge marketcap. If it is too much, we'll have lower burst usage bc too high transaction cost. Then mktcap go down and it's not too much after all.  If it is too little, we will probably have many transactions as transactions are so cheap, but not so much network size. The many transactions ought to increase marketcap as demand would be higher and the number of burst constant, so perhaps too little will correct itself also. Perhaps not.. but i say let's give it a try when we get there, and see if it doesn't work out alright.  We can always make a forked coin and experiment with that.

[bitladen]

pinball, that's quite a theory there.
you left out one aspect. when hashrate goes low enough i will be waiting there and take over the network.
then you will have to mine with 0 reward against me until maybe you can overpower me. until then other miners will get 0. explain the economics of this. why it should work

[haitch]

Paying for the servers is not a problem - I believe in this coin and want to do anything I can to help it succeed.

You know my thoughts on the block reward - resync it to a 1%/month devaluation.

Bitladen has threatened to destroy the coin - he can't be involved in the development of the coin.

 

[haitch]

pinball, that's quite a theory there.
you left out one aspect. when hashrate goes low enough i will be waiting there and take over the network.
then you will have to mine with 0 reward against me until maybe you can overpower me. until then other miners will get 0. explain the economics of this. why it should work

You get 51%, we request delisting from the exchanges - you have all the burst that can't be traded anywhere. You just killed the coin. congrats.