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

[burstcoin]

Is there a way to check mining info and balance if you can't access the web interface?
Using CLI, and Lynx isn't very friendly with it heh.

If you really need to check it from cli, you can wget the api.
examples:
wget -qO - "http://127.0.0.1:8125/burst?requestType=getAccount&account=BURST-9UUM-FUSH-QAJS-CEGM9"
wget -qO - "http://127.0.0.1:8125/burst?requestType=getMiningInfo"
wget -qO - "http://127.0.0.1:8125/burst?requestType=getBlockchainStatus"

[1713905427]

1713905427

[1713905427]

1713905427

[1713905427]

1713905427

[1713905427]

1713905427

[1713905427]

1713905427

[Depredation]

Selling 50k burst pm me offers

[hvidgaard]

If I generate plot files of 10GiB, and say 50 of them, it's the same as generating one on 500GiB? It makes it a lot easier to stop and start the generation process, and one machine can create plots full time and then move the plot files to other machines.

[burstcoin]

If I generate plot files of 10GiB, and say 50 of them, it's the same as generating one on 500GiB? It makes it a lot easier to stop and start the generation process, and one machine can create plots full time and then move the plot files to other machines.

Yes it's the same. Just make sure the nonce ranges don't overlap.

[salve80]

to the DEV ... i musst ask again...

i have this: (overlapping is only bad for diskspace?)
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 500000 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 1000000 500000 2000 4

or should i use this?
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4                (128GB)
run_generate.bat <address> 500001 500000 4000 4        (128GB)
run_generate.bat <address> 1000001 500000 2000 4      (128GB)

and second.
if i have i big gap like this.. do i need ploting the missing file for correct mining or can i move to the next plot?
i mean do i ned a coherent chain ??
1. run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4                (128GB)
2. (missing file of 128GB)
3. run_generate.bat <address> 1000001 500000 2000 4      (128GB)
4. (next plot: 1500001 500000 2000 4)

[Sy]

to the DEV ... i musst ask again...

i have this: (overlapping is only bad for diskspace?)
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 500000 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 1000000 500000 2000 4

or should i use this?
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4                (128GB)
run_generate.bat <address> 500001 500000 4000 4        (128GB)
run_generate.bat <address> 1000001 500000 2000 4      (128GB)

and second.
if i have i big gap like this.. do i need ploting the missing file for correct mining or can i move to the next plot?
i mean do i ned a coherent chain ??
1. run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4                (128GB)
2. (missing file of 128GB)
3. run_generate.bat <address> 1000001 500000 2000 4      (128GB)
4. (next plot: 1500001 500000 2000 4)

Overlapping only wastes diskspace, with one nounce like that, 256kb -> doesnt matter

Gap doesn't matter either, its the sum of your nounces, not the range.

[hvidgaard]

If I generate plot files of 10GiB, and say 50 of them, it's the same as generating one on 500GiB? It makes it a lot easier to stop and start the generation process, and one machine can create plots full time and then move the plot files to other machines.

Yes it's the same. Just make sure the nonce ranges don't overlap.

Thanks, if they do it's only by a single plot, I can live with that Now I have to go on a cleaning mission, my harddrives are running out of space!

[Mraking]

sell 20k=0,1 btc

[burstcoin]

to the DEV ... i musst ask again...

i have this: (overlapping is only bad for diskspace?)
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 500000 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 1000000 500000 2000 4

or should i use this?
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4                (128GB)
run_generate.bat <address> 500001 500000 4000 4        (128GB)
run_generate.bat <address> 1000001 500000 2000 4      (128GB)

and second.
if i have i big gap like this.. do i need ploting the missing file for correct mining or can i move to the next plot?
i mean do i ned a coherent chain ??
1. run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4                (128GB)
2. (missing file of 128GB)
3. run_generate.bat <address> 1000001 500000 2000 4      (128GB)
4. (next plot: 1500001 500000 2000 4)

Either is fine. Technically, 500000 plots starting from 0 is 0 - 499999, so the second has a gap of 1 in between the first 2, but that doesn't matter.

Overlapping is bad since it calculates to the same result in multiple places, wasting disk space and doing unnecessary work.
There is no problem with having gaps.
This:
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 500000 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 1000000 500000 2000 4
is just as good as this:
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 5000000000 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 9898000000 500000 2000 4

[foodies123]

Wait, how is this work globaly verifiable by peers, how do you know my miner isn't modded to just relay random data until something stivks and I get a block ?

[Sy]

{
    "lastBlock": "16322078320396019945",
    "lastBlockchainFeederHeight": 1222,
    "time": 299736,
    "lastBlockchainFeeder": "54.167.111.103:8123",
    "numberOfBlocks": 1223,
    "isScanning": false,
    "cumulativeDifficulty": "70385126787201",
    "version": "1.0.0"
}

Another ~50% increase within ~16h

Code:

{
    "lastBlock": "1520116135762103722",
    "lastBlockchainFeederHeight": 1457,
    "time": 367546,
    "lastBlockchainFeeder": "109.195.211.62",
    "numberOfBlocks": 1458,
    "isScanning": false,
    "cumulativeDifficulty": "105192234724606",
    "version": "1.0.0"
}

[jzhoulon]

{
    "lastBlock": "16322078320396019945",
    "lastBlockchainFeederHeight": 1222,
    "time": 299736,
    "lastBlockchainFeeder": "54.167.111.103:8123",
    "numberOfBlocks": 1223,
    "isScanning": false,
    "cumulativeDifficulty": "70385126787201",
    "version": "1.0.0"
}

Another ~50% increase within ~16h

Code:

{
    "lastBlock": "1520116135762103722",
    "lastBlockchainFeederHeight": 1457,
    "time": 367546,
    "lastBlockchainFeeder": "109.195.211.62",
    "numberOfBlocks": 1458,
    "isScanning": false,
    "cumulativeDifficulty": "105192234724606",
    "version": "1.0.0"
}

when the pools come out, its difficulty will increase more faster ,now only just 5 days since the coin came out,when the difficulty increase until you can only less than 1 block/TB/Month, then the coins value will be enhanced

[uray]

{
    "lastBlock": "16322078320396019945",
    "lastBlockchainFeederHeight": 1222,
    "time": 299736,
    "lastBlockchainFeeder": "54.167.111.103:8123",
    "numberOfBlocks": 1223,
    "isScanning": false,
    "cumulativeDifficulty": "70385126787201",
    "version": "1.0.0"
}

Another ~50% increase within ~16h

Code:

{
    "lastBlock": "1520116135762103722",
    "lastBlockchainFeederHeight": 1457,
    "time": 367546,
    "lastBlockchainFeeder": "109.195.211.62",
    "numberOfBlocks": 1458,
    "isScanning": false,
    "cumulativeDifficulty": "105192234724606",
    "version": "1.0.0"
}

when the pools come out, its difficulty will increase more faster ,now only just 5 days since the coin came out,when the difficulty increase until you can only less than 1 block/TB/Month, then the coins value will be enhanced

i think its already expensive, since we dont have fractional coin here
so coin cap of 2,158,812,800 coins is similar to 21 coin cap of bitcoin style shitcoin ( because of 8 digits fractional )
so i expect the price will be 100 sat btc to 1 burst ( 1million burst = 1 btc )

[SpeedDemon13]

to the DEV ... i musst ask again...

i have this: (overlapping is only bad for diskspace?)
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 500000 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 1000000 500000 2000 4

or should i use this?
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4                (128GB)
run_generate.bat <address> 500001 500000 4000 4        (128GB)
run_generate.bat <address> 1000001 500000 2000 4      (128GB)

and second.
if i have i big gap like this.. do i need ploting the missing file for correct mining or can i move to the next plot?
i mean do i ned a coherent chain ??
1. run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4                (128GB)
2. (missing file of 128GB)
3. run_generate.bat <address> 1000001 500000 2000 4      (128GB)
4. (next plot: 1500001 500000 2000 4)

Either is fine. Technically, 500000 plots starting from 0 is 0 - 499999, so the second has a gap of 1 in between the first 2, but that doesn't matter.

Overlapping is bad since it calculates to the same result in multiple places, wasting disk space and doing unnecessary work.
There is no problem with having gaps.
This:
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 500000 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 1000000 500000 2000 4
is just as good as this:
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 5000000000 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 9898000000 500000 2000 4

So, staggering is best implemented on the same drive. But on multiple drives, you can start from each one at 0 if you wanted to with one large plot for each. If I'm understanding this correctly. I notice that it seems that most people are more successful making smaller multiple plots on hdd's than one larger one.

So, the formula for calculating nonce size is this: x=Nonce size

                                                                  f(x)=hdd size in GB

                                                                  (256x)/10^6=f(x)

                                                                   x=[f(x)*10^6]/256

[uray]

to the DEV ... i musst ask again...

i have this: (overlapping is only bad for diskspace?)
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 500000 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 1000000 500000 2000 4

or should i use this?
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4                (128GB)
run_generate.bat <address> 500001 500000 4000 4        (128GB)
run_generate.bat <address> 1000001 500000 2000 4      (128GB)

and second.
if i have i big gap like this.. do i need ploting the missing file for correct mining or can i move to the next plot?
i mean do i ned a coherent chain ??
1. run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4                (128GB)
2. (missing file of 128GB)
3. run_generate.bat <address> 1000001 500000 2000 4      (128GB)
4. (next plot: 1500001 500000 2000 4)

Either is fine. Technically, 500000 plots starting from 0 is 0 - 499999, so the second has a gap of 1 in between the first 2, but that doesn't matter.

Overlapping is bad since it calculates to the same result in multiple places, wasting disk space and doing unnecessary work.
There is no problem with having gaps.
This:
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 500000 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 1000000 500000 2000 4
is just as good as this:
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 5000000000 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 9898000000 500000 2000 4

So, staggering is best implemented on the same drive. But on multiple drives, you can start from each one at 0 if you wanted to with one large plot for each. If I'm understanding this correctly. I notice that it seems that most people are more successful making smaller multiple plots on hdd's than one larger one.

So, the formula for calculating nonce size is this: x=Nonce size

                                                                  f(x)=hdd size in GB

                                                                  (256x)/10^6=f(x)

                                                                   x=[f(x)*10^6]/256

its not 10^6 but 1024^2

[SpeedDemon13]

to the DEV ... i musst ask again...

i have this: (overlapping is only bad for diskspace?)
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 500000 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 1000000 500000 2000 4

or should i use this?
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4                (128GB)
run_generate.bat <address> 500001 500000 4000 4        (128GB)
run_generate.bat <address> 1000001 500000 2000 4      (128GB)

and second.
if i have i big gap like this.. do i need ploting the missing file for correct mining or can i move to the next plot?
i mean do i ned a coherent chain ??
1. run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4                (128GB)
2. (missing file of 128GB)
3. run_generate.bat <address> 1000001 500000 2000 4      (128GB)
4. (next plot: 1500001 500000 2000 4)

Either is fine. Technically, 500000 plots starting from 0 is 0 - 499999, so the second has a gap of 1 in between the first 2, but that doesn't matter.

Overlapping is bad since it calculates to the same result in multiple places, wasting disk space and doing unnecessary work.
There is no problem with having gaps.
This:
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 500000 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 1000000 500000 2000 4
is just as good as this:
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 5000000000 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 9898000000 500000 2000 4

So, staggering is best implemented on the same drive. But on multiple drives, you can start from each one at 0 if you wanted to with one large plot for each. If I'm understanding this correctly. I notice that it seems that most people are more successful making smaller multiple plots on hdd's than one larger one.

So, the formula for calculating nonce size is this: x=Nonce size

                                                                  f(x)=hdd size

                                                                  (256x)/10^6=f(x)

                                                                   x=[f(x)*10^6]/256

its not 10^6 but 1024^2

That's an approximate, but so this would be the end result then: x=[f(x)*1024kb^2]/256kb

[uray]

to the DEV ... i musst ask again...

i have this: (overlapping is only bad for diskspace?)
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 500000 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 1000000 500000 2000 4

or should i use this?
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4                (128GB)
run_generate.bat <address> 500001 500000 4000 4        (128GB)
run_generate.bat <address> 1000001 500000 2000 4      (128GB)

and second.
if i have i big gap like this.. do i need ploting the missing file for correct mining or can i move to the next plot?
i mean do i ned a coherent chain ??
1. run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4                (128GB)
2. (missing file of 128GB)
3. run_generate.bat <address> 1000001 500000 2000 4      (128GB)
4. (next plot: 1500001 500000 2000 4)

Either is fine. Technically, 500000 plots starting from 0 is 0 - 499999, so the second has a gap of 1 in between the first 2, but that doesn't matter.

Overlapping is bad since it calculates to the same result in multiple places, wasting disk space and doing unnecessary work.
There is no problem with having gaps.
This:
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 500000 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 1000000 500000 2000 4
is just as good as this:
run_generate.bat <address> 0 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 5000000000 500000 4000 4
run_generate.bat <address> 9898000000 500000 2000 4

So, staggering is best implemented on the same drive. But on multiple drives, you can start from each one at 0 if you wanted to with one large plot for each. If I'm understanding this correctly. I notice that it seems that most people are more successful making smaller multiple plots on hdd's than one larger one.

So, the formula for calculating nonce size is this: x=Nonce size

                                                                  f(x)=hdd size in GB

                                                                  (256x)/10^6=f(x)

                                                                   x=[f(x)*10^6]/256

its not 10^6 but 1024^2

That's an approximate, but so this would be the end result then: x=[f(x)*1024^2]/256

you should write it f(x) = x*1024^2/256 (for correct mathematical expression), where x is disk size in GB and f(x) is nonce count

anyway, more correct and simple equation form is f(x) = x*4096 , where x in GB of disk size

[coin-cidence]

Very unaccurate Burst network estimation at this moment : ~330TB (~60TB more than yesterday), and 0,89 block / TB / day

+- 50%

if anybody wants to participate in estimation please send me PM with info: plot size and ID

[shlsumy]

how i can start generate plat on next HDD?

Cent Os

2-nd HDD mount on

/mnt/disk1/

[WolfOf]

Wait, how is this work globaly verifiable by peers, how do you know my miner isn't modded to just relay random data until something stivks and I get a block ?

I also want to know the answer of this question. I dont have the time to debug the program now, but i think that admin will ensure us that everything is ok.

And also why i have to send my passphrase to the central server/pool. It,s not secure... That way every pool admin will have the accounts of every user, which is mining...I don't want to speak about hackers... Why dont you send the Burst adress

this is from MinerCom.java

Code:

		else if(message instanceof MinerSupr.msgSubmitResult) {
			System.out.println("Submitting share");
			try {
				ContentResponse response = client.POST(addr + "/burst")
						.param("requestType", "submitNonce")
						[b].param("secretPhrase", ((MinerSupr.msgSubmitResult)message).passPhrase)[/b]
						.param("nonce", Convert.toUnsignedLong(((MinerSupr.msgSubmitResult)message).nonce))
						.timeout(5, TimeUnit.SECONDS)
						.send();
				String submitResult = response.getContentAsString();
				System.out.println(submitResult);
			}
			catch(Exception e) {
				System.out.println("Error: Failed to submit nonce");
			}
		}