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

[bitladen]

Also as i understand pool mining for the clone isnt nessesary because this has no advantage exect that you need a local wallet and must not deal with time sync issues?. In this case the dual miner should support solo/solo pool/solo pool/pool and solo/pool mining.

Win and linux version.

Make a clone and release it with the dual win and linux miner and i dont see, why the burst community and miners should not try the clone. With this we have a win win situation.

If you like my idea, please sent 1 mio burst or more for the business consulting to my burst adress  

well it's pretty much my idea. maybe you should send me 1 mil

miners already exist. multicoin optimized miners, not yet.

my pool protocol, the client version will most likely be released.
pool code most likely not, but provided to pools that support me, and that I can trust not to release it

[bobafett]

Also as i understand pool mining for the clone isnt nessesary because this has no advantage exect that you need a local wallet and must not deal with time sync issues?. In this case the dual miner should support solo/solo pool/solo pool/pool and solo/pool mining.

Win and linux version.

Make a clone and release it with the dual win and linux miner and i dont see, why the burst community and miners should not try the clone. With this we have a win win situation.

If you like my idea, please sent 1 mio burst or more for the business consulting to my burst adress  

well it's pretty much my idea. maybe you should send me 1 mil

miners already exist. multicoin optimized miners, not yet.

my pool protocol, the client version will most likely be released.
pool code most likely not, but provided to pools that support me, and that I can trust not to release it

I think the release of the dual miner is the gamechanger for your clone, because every burst miner can mine both without additional costs.

Running 2 instances of the miner doubles the mining costs and because if that without a dual miner not much miners will join. You have double read times and for example my 80tb miner needs 50 seconds. If i run 2 instances the time is 2,5x because of the unootimized parallel reading. Much blocks are under 1 minute.... So thats no option. Optimizer miner read one and compare the read data with both coins.

I think the existing pool software also can be used for the clone. No need to release a new... Or im wrong?


Dual miner was my idea, so sent the million 

If you eant, i can run a node for your coin, i got a free vm....

[bitladen]

I think the release of the dual miner is the gamechanger for your clone, because every burst miner can mine both without additional costs.

luxe, has perfect understanding of the implications of dual mining, it only hinders performance when blocks are simultaneously submitted on both networks.

so the performance improvement is somewhat marginal. all the same, it's not that hard to make a multicoin aware miner.

and you can use the same miner connection for all coins. this reduces pool load.

Running 2 instances of the miner doubles the mining costs and because if that without a dual miner not much miners will join. You have double read times and for example my 80tb miner needs 50 seconds. If i run 2 instances the time is 2,5x because of the unootimized parallel reading. Much blocks are under 1 minute.... So thats no option. Optimizer miner read one and compare the read data with both coins.

not really. there's only the issue of scheduling the reads when blocks come in simultaneously.

I think the existing pool software also can be used for the clone. No need to release a new... Or im wrong?

yes, it can, but it is a pathetic getwork implementation. and since i already have better code, why not use it.

Dual miner was my idea, so sent the million 

was mine

If you eant, i can run a node for your coin, i got a free vm....

I appreciate it, but make up your mind, a page ago, you said you were against me.
Thus far I'm thinking to work with crowetic and Elmit on the pool stuff.

[bobafett]

No problem, then in have less work.

But if you read my posts in detail and the other earlier, i was against the 51 attack, not against the other thing. Clone is the best sol, also read our emails we wrote a few months ago.

[bobafett]

One problem with the dual miner that comes in my mind is that the 2 coins have different times when a block is solved. To prevent double data reading the miner should remember the plots and pos, when a new block occures and read in a loop

[bitladen]

No problem, then in have less work.

But if you read my posts in detail and the other earlier, i was against the 51 attack, not against the other thing. Clone is the best sol, also read our emails we wrote a few months ago.

lol, does anybody here have a sense of humor?
I was just messing with you.

Yea, sure I'd appreciate a node.

[pjsonowal]

Hmmm.. Its nice to see new crytpocurrency coming in market will try this...... May i know its price in usd and sites where it can be traded or exchanged

[pinballdude]

as i understand, if bit releases a clone, the plot files can be used...

what if blago releases a minerversion, that submits the deadlines to both wallets (bursts and the clone ones) or two pools simultaneously ?

We got a dual mining coin system with zero extra costs?!

Plotfiles could be used to mine on multiple BURST clones.
But the minig itself has to be done for every clone.
Currently mined scoop and deadline depends on blocknumber and last block winner.

indeed, however having support for multiple coins in the same miner can be done, and the benefit would be that the same hdd isn't accessed simultaneously by 2 processes.

I'm no expert in GPUs, but maybe it's not ideal to run 2 GPU miners simultaneously either. Is this true?

Lol, it seems there is much support for a clone. Maybe I should just do that. Agreed?

I think that if you allow use of burstcoin plotfiles with your new coin, then you set it up to be vulnerable for a 51% attack, especially if the burstcoin miners have a lot of TB plotted. The miners of the larger coin will be able to attack the smaller coin without having to plot first.  The plotting suff makes it harder to "just" attack. So in order to protect your coin from attacks, it might be a good thing to not make burst plots usable.

on the other hand, if plots can be reused, it is somewhat easier to shift over.

If you use the same plots, then the 1.7PB you have will be able to mine new coin from day 1.  I doubt anyone hostile have that amount of plots. Most people will not 51% attack even if they have the opportunity, for them, it's the same as they won't threaten a kid to go pick them beer, just bc they could kick the kid's arse if it did not want to.

[vaxman]

I just received a message from bin/laden/ ... That needs to be leaked to burst community:

Code:

Hey! I see you mine a lot of blocks. I want to discuss something with you.
Together we can take control of the network and force them to increase our rewards.
I posted this on the forum, of course they're unhappy :)
But if we put together 51% of the hashpower it's not for them to decide.
msg me back or email: l_adenne@mail.com or XMPP: benladder@crypt.am

The words 'force them to increase our rewards' and ' it's not for them to decide' should say all about him. And some of you want that person as dev? Reconsider!

Guess same message was send to:

Code:

BURST-WDK8-EYW8-NHMQ-77777
BURST-SDAC-FFUD-SMCB-D3Q74
BURST-42JY-E6TZ-885E-AZ9HK
BURST-XNS5-62HN-J3UY-79THE
BURST-ELAL-S7GX-6ASS-4RSAM
BURST-5M3F-REHB-PWRE-6E4HP
BURST-A7NY-ESG8-9VAT-DQJVF
BURST-3N7E-CX8T-K6AM-D6Q4N

I'm quite sure that none of these accounts will support him, but would be nice if they comment in here ...

I had a short encrypted conversation on the blockchain with him in mid-June, same content.
Well, my reaction is that I just added 50 TB to my rig on Friday.
As long as power and AC supply permit I'll keep them online.

D6Q4N

[bitladen]

I think that if you allow use of burstcoin plotfiles with your new coin, then you set it up to be vulnerable for a 51% attack, especially if the burstcoin miners have a lot of TB plotted. The miners of the larger coin will be able to attack the smaller coin without having to plot first.  The plotting suff makes it harder to "just" attack. So in order to protect your coin from attacks, it might be a good thing to not make burst plots usable.

that would require the users to form an alliance otherwise the hashpower will be distributed the same way as in burst. plus that there's no single miner that can attack me. in fact there isn't any group of 5 miners that can attack me.

still if burst users could agree on that, and attack me it would be quite an achievement. no big deal for me, its brand new clone, I just make a new one.

on the other hand, if plots can be reused, it is somewhat easier to shift over.

If you use the same plots, then the 1.7PB you have will be able to mine new coin from day 1.  I doubt anyone hostile have that amount of plots. Most people will not 51% attack even if they have the opportunity, for them, it's the same as they won't threaten a kid to go pick them beer, just bc they could kick the kid's arse if it did not want to.

yea well thats the idea. plus that my coin will be able to support the growth of hashpower, due to the reward structure.

[bitladen]

I had a short encrypted conversation on the blockchain with him in mid-June, same content.
Well, my reaction is that I just added 50 TB to my rig on Friday.
As long as power and AC supply permit I'll keep them online.

D6Q4N

yep. I'm not sure if you realize, if we form a 51% alliance, we effectively double our rewards. as in with 51% of the hashpower we get all blocks, instead of just 51%

[jwinterm]

I think that if you allow use of burstcoin plotfiles with your new coin...

yea well thats the idea. plus that my coin will be able to support the growth of hashpower, due to the reward structure.

Interesting idea, to have the first "merge-mined" PoC coin (also only the second PoC coin, afaik). I wouldn't expect reward structure or any other coin specification to draw more people to the clone though; have you ever seen a merge-mined coin surpass the parent, so to speak?

[bitladen]

Interesting idea, to have the first "merge-mined" PoC coin (also only the second PoC coin, afaik). I wouldn't expect reward structure or any other coin specification to draw more people to the clone though; have you ever seen a merge-mined coin surpass the parent, so to speak?

With the way burst market is going, it wouldn't be too hard. usually merged mining is done against strong coins

[vaxman]

I had a short encrypted conversation on the blockchain with him in mid-June, same content.
Well, my reaction is that I just added 50 TB to my rig on Friday.
As long as power and AC supply permit I'll keep them online.

D6Q4N

yep. I'm not sure if you realize, if we form a 51% alliance, we effectively double our rewards.
as in with 51% of the hashpower we get all blocks, instead of just 51%

You see, I'm not in this to get out the maximum possible amount of coins. I want this coin to succeed,
I want to see services, external use of this thing.  I have the impression that your plan might hurt the
longterm prospects, therefore we're not in the same boat.

[bitladen]

I had a short encrypted conversation on the blockchain with him in mid-June, same content.
Well, my reaction is that I just added 50 TB to my rig on Friday.
As long as power and AC supply permit I'll keep them online.

D6Q4N

yep. I'm not sure if you realize, if we form a 51% alliance, we effectively double our rewards.
as in with 51% of the hashpower we get all blocks, instead of just 51%

You see, I'm not in this to get out the maximum possible amount of coins. I want this coin to succeed,
I want to see services, external use of this thing.  I have the impression that your plan hurts the longterm
prospects, therefore we're not in the same boat.

that's alright, can't hurt that I asked though, right?
and there's the fact that I think your strategy is self defeating in the long run. but you don't have to agree.
i'm just saying.
listen or not, its up to you.

[vaxman]

that's alright, can't hurt that I asked though, right?

no hard feelings.
Other than the usual childish nagging on this forum your posts where at least insightful, inspiring and open. Mostly.

I don't see you as the evil attacker/extortioner, a 51% attack is just a real thing we have to deal with.

I didn't see this coming and was very surprised that someone has access to nearly 2PB "cheap".
Just guessing here, but I don't believe you're paying standard market rates for those - but you
already told us not to ask, OK.

[bitladen]

that's alright, can't hurt that I asked though, right?

no hard feelings.
Other than the usual childish nagging on this forum your posts where at least insightful, inspiring and open. Mostly.

I don't see you as the evil attacker/extortioner, a 51% attack is just a real thing we have to deal with.
I was very surprised that someone has access to nearly 2PB "cheap". Just guessing here, but I don't
believe you're paying standard market rates for those.

Well, allow me to retort, you have quite some hashpower yourself, where's that coming from? I guess you're not paying standard market rates. Or you're crazier than I am.

But all I'm saying is: burst hashpower is low. Get more hashpower!
And the only reasonable way to get it that I can think of is by increasing the rewards ( reward increase or price increase ). Surely at least price increase would benefit all the holders, yet they don't seem to care. No way of doing that without pumping, why don't they form an alliance of their own, and act together to pump it?

In any case, I see support for my future clone. I will do that.
But be assured, if you allow the hashrate to drop to the point where I have 51% I feel obligated to attack. No hard feelings.

[haitch]

that's alright, can't hurt that I asked though, right?

no hard feelings.
Other than the usual childish nagging on this forum your posts where at least insightful, inspiring and open. Mostly.

I don't see you as the evil attacker/extortioner, a 51% attack is just a real thing we have to deal with.

I didn't see this coming and was very surprised that someone has access to nearly 2PB "cheap".
Just guessing here, but I don't believe you're paying standard market rates for those - but you
already told us not to ask, OK.

He doesn't have access to "cheap" 2PB - he has access to free 2PB - he's running a botnet. He has 2PB of unwitting, unknowing, miners mining for him.

[vaxman]

He doesn't have access to "cheap" 2PB - he has access to free 2PB - he's running a botnet. He has 2PB of unwitting, unknowing, miners mining for him.

Is there any indication of a botnet of usurped machines ?
Do you have proof or are you just painting in vivid colours here ?


If this was a botnet (unknowing victims) this would constitute a criminal offence on various levels,
at least in my jurisdiction. So, is there anything besides chatter that supports your allegation ?

[bitladen]

He doesn't have access to "cheap" 2PB - he has access to free 2PB - he's running a botnet. He has 2PB of unwitting, unknowing, miners mining for him.

Is there any indication of a botnet of usurped machines ?
Do you have proof or are you just painting in vivid colours here ?

Last I've checked botnets were illegal. I would never engage in illegal activities.
It seems to that haitch is the one with no proof here