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

[burstcoin]

[---]
Have you considered to integrate this into a Torrent client? Including someking of Proof of Bandwith?

Include what into a Torrent client...? I don't understand.

I mean if somehow we could do a proof of sharing, based either on bandwidth or disk space ...

Compared to maid and storj (which are just pumped IPOs at this moment, non-mineable and with no utility), BURST makes no promises this will be at all possible. Proof of Being Reliable Storage And Not Just Someone Faking It is very, very difficult to do in reliable fashion. So far, all proposals to do this in decentralized fashion are technobabble than anything sound.

The Storj Whitepaper was released officially today at www.storj.io/storj.pdf
They also have the access plans posted at www.storj.io/earlyaccess

This paper doesn't really address what I consider to be the most difficult problems in such a system. Any time the topic of data storage and bandwith comes up in this thread it becomes very apparent that for some users the bandwith used is much more of a concern than storing large amounts of data. Because of this, I suspect any system like storj will have users who are willing to honestly store and provide verifications for the data they are storing, but will be unwilling to transfer this data when requested, as the bandwith used is more valuable to them than than transfer fee. The other problem would be efficiently handling the transfer payments. As retrieving a file may require retrieving many shards which may need to be transferred from multiple users each, handling payment by traditional means could result in a massive amount of transactions.

[super3]

[---]
Have you considered to integrate this into a Torrent client? Including someking of Proof of Bandwith?

Include what into a Torrent client...? I don't understand.

I mean if somehow we could do a proof of sharing, based either on bandwidth or disk space ...

Compared to maid and storj (which are just pumped IPOs at this moment, non-mineable and with no utility), BURST makes no promises this will be at all possible. Proof of Being Reliable Storage And Not Just Someone Faking It is very, very difficult to do in reliable fashion. So far, all proposals to do this in decentralized fashion are technobabble than anything sound.

The Storj Whitepaper was released officially today at www.storj.io/storj.pdf
They also have the access plans posted at www.storj.io/earlyaccess

This paper doesn't really address what I consider to be the most difficult problems in such a system. Any time the topic of data storage and bandwith comes up in this thread it becomes very apparent that for some users the bandwith used is much more of a concern than storing large amounts of data. Because of this, I suspect any system like storj will have users who are willing to honestly store and provide verifications for the data they are storing, but will be unwilling to transfer this data when requested, as the bandwith used is more valuable to them than than transfer fee. The other problem would be efficiently handling the transfer payments. As retrieving a file may require retrieving many shards which may need to be transferred from multiple users each, handling payment by traditional means could result in a massive amount of transactions.

Did you read the whitepaper? I covered how to do this in Section 10.

[mczarnek]

Everyone is arguing about the botnet.. have you noticed how bullish the order books have been looking though?  Particularly on Poloniex.

Solid floors of people buying with only a trickle of people selling.. of course the 1% inflation per day plays a part but even in spite of that we're saying pretty steady.. and in fact steadily increasing in price.  A couple weeks ago you could buy under 110, last week 120, now it seems you can barely buy under 130 satoshis.

My point though is that if buyers are this bullish, I'm sure miners also are bullish and stocking up.  I suspect we're seeing real growth, not a botnet.  Wish the burstcoin.eu statistics were more accurate, would require them having a larger percentage of the mining power though I guess.. so the higher it gets, the more unreliable the statistics will get   Maybe others can chip in data to burstcoin.eu?   Have a few of the big miners tell them how much hard drive space they are contributing to the network to improve that statistic?

And how much advertising and marketing effort have we really been making?  Personally, I have been reaching out to people, specifically Nxt developers and litecoin developers, trying to get them on board while the price is low.  I would highly recommend others do the same.  I've gotten a little bit of interest, nobody who was extremely excited but some interest and I imagine investment.

Give this coin 2 to 4 months.. and I expect that we'll see a bubble and that 0.5 cents is not unreasonable, probably even low.  Consider that this is a coin (as well as a 'token'), yet Nxt has been marketing itself as solely a token.. which automatically makes it less valuable.  This coin could easily be a top 5 coin if a couple key things go right.  Personally, for me that means re-working the plotting and mining, which is a hassle but some key things could be done to improve ASIC resistance long term as well as improving the verification of blocks (by about a factor of 600 million), which allows reduced block times.. down to about a minute.  Have bounced these ideas around with burstcoin.

We also need some people to hoard this coin, and then later when the price increases invest it back into development and marketing of the coin.  I'm doing my part there.  This coin will only be successful if we have some big holders who intend to put their money back into growing the coin. If the coin is too well distributed, then no one has enough vested interest and money to later spend on growing their investment.

[mczarnek]

Compared to maid and storj (which are just pumped IPOs at this moment, non-mineable and with no utility), BURST makes no promises this will be at all possible. Proof of Being Reliable Storage And Not Just Someone Faking It is very, very difficult to do in reliable fashion. So far, all proposals to do this in decentralized fashion are technobabble than anything sound.

Isn't Maidsafe already doing this?  I understood that they already had something working, right?

[callmejack]

The Storj Whitepaper was released officially today at www.storj.io/storj.pdf

It does not elaborate on how exactly is audit consensus executed (most notably, whom audits who - and when).
From technical perspective, storj is plagued by same problems as, for example, ethereum. Someone raises some
attack vector (stemming from lack of robustness), vitalik roughly explains how to bandage it. And it goes on and on.

They also have the access plans posted at www.storj.io/earlyaccess

I have to admit this pump is ingenious

Says the person who read 18 pages in 15 minutes and fully understood everything he read

i had'nt to read any further than page one last paragraph.
decentralized cloud storage is what sounds great but includes several flaws of the main idea in terms of service costs.
like point 4 states you can choose the redundancy when putting a file onto the cloud (this i also suggested in the burst storage discussion).
working with 4 copies as default is far too less to protect your files  against loss.
adding 500 copies, which is stated to be armageddon resistant, drives the costs higher than professional hosting costs.  

for average miner (farmer) you can assume a max upload speed of 80-100 kb/s.
so if you want to distribute huge amounts of data through storj like iso images of linux distributions and buy 500 copies you can rely on 5 gigabit simultanous download speed at least (some farmer may be faster than average).

cheating the network may not be useful in terms of storage capacity.
furthermore bandwidth is the key to cheat by preventing data transfers.
you may setup a cluster of virtual hosts with 50 gb capacity each. they are behind a custom made firewall not allowing traffic to the same outside peers.
in addition only audits, heartbeats and blockchain access is allowed at full bandwidth. the blockchain may be accessed through one or more headnodes.
depending on the integration of the p2p protocols it may be even possible to fill up the 50gb virtual hosts through only one headnode and get listed their storage in the blockchains metadata.

 

[burstcoin]

[---]
Have you considered to integrate this into a Torrent client? Including someking of Proof of Bandwith?

Include what into a Torrent client...? I don't understand.

I mean if somehow we could do a proof of sharing, based either on bandwidth or disk space ...

Compared to maid and storj (which are just pumped IPOs at this moment, non-mineable and with no utility), BURST makes no promises this will be at all possible. Proof of Being Reliable Storage And Not Just Someone Faking It is very, very difficult to do in reliable fashion. So far, all proposals to do this in decentralized fashion are technobabble than anything sound.

The Storj Whitepaper was released officially today at www.storj.io/storj.pdf
They also have the access plans posted at www.storj.io/earlyaccess

This paper doesn't really address what I consider to be the most difficult problems in such a system. Any time the topic of data storage and bandwith comes up in this thread it becomes very apparent that for some users the bandwith used is much more of a concern than storing large amounts of data. Because of this, I suspect any system like storj will have users who are willing to honestly store and provide verifications for the data they are storing, but will be unwilling to transfer this data when requested, as the bandwith used is more valuable to them than than transfer fee. The other problem would be efficiently handling the transfer payments. As retrieving a file may require retrieving many shards which may need to be transferred from multiple users each, handling payment by traditional means could result in a massive amount of transactions.

Did you read the whitepaper? I covered how to do this in Section 10.

Yes I did read it. The first part of my post was referring to the situation of having a peer that is storing the data, but won't transfer it if the owner of the data wants to download it. Under this situation they will pass the heartbeat checks regardless of which method is used to perform them, since the farmers are storing the data. One could argue that "We instead designate the client as the ultimate decision maker in the network." is sufficient as a user has the authority to ditch a farmer and designate a new one if they are not behaving to their satisfaction, however especially in the case of long-term storage, the user might not know that there will be a problem with a peer when they want to download their data, and may assume that their data is still accessible because the farmers are passing the heartbeat checks, even when the data may no longer be retrievable to them.

Your section on GVNs sending payments I originally thought was just about heartbeat payments. If it is also being used for transfer payments, I may be mistaken about that being an issue.

[katlogic]

Compared to maid and storj (which are just pumped IPOs at this moment, non-mineable and with no utility), BURST makes no promises this will be at all possible. Proof of Being Reliable Storage And Not Just Someone Faking It is very, very difficult to do in reliable fashion. So far, all proposals to do this in decentralized fashion are technobabble than anything sound.

Isn't Maidsafe already doing this?  I understood that they already had something working, right?

Both maidsafe and storj are very aggresively marketing with very little to show for it. Not saying its outright scam (storj at least outlined the backbones how it could work in language which mostly makes sense. Still, their story has a lot of practical plot holes in it.). It's just a lot of snake oil dream selling for my taste (things like buy 10k of our asset ... and you MIGHT download our opensource software, which is of course totally free and open).

[m3ta]

(things like buy 10k of our asset ... and you MIGHT download our opensource software, which is of course totally free and open).

^This.
I get really pissed when someone says "opensource" and then you gotta buy it.
It's outrageous to be using the "opensource brand" for their own marketing advantages and profit.
Fuck those cunts. DIAF

[callmejack]

Compared to maid and storj (which are just pumped IPOs at this moment, non-mineable and with no utility), BURST makes no promises this will be at all possible. Proof of Being Reliable Storage And Not Just Someone Faking It is very, very difficult to do in reliable fashion. So far, all proposals to do this in decentralized fashion are technobabble than anything sound.

Isn't Maidsafe already doing this?  I understood that they already had something working, right?

Both maidsafe and storj are very aggresively marketing with very little to show for it. Not saying its outright scam (storj at least outlined the backbones how it could work in language which mostly makes sense. Still, their story has a lot of practical plot holes in it.). It's just a lot of snake oil dream selling for my taste (things like buy 10k of our asset ... and you MIGHT download our opensource software, which is of course totally free and open).

i just thought that the storj p2p and jard backend can be used in a private cloud to utilize a companies office pc freespace for data backup container.
there is currently no product doing this in a simple secure way (encryption, storage administration and distribution).

[katlogic]

i just thought that the storj p2p and jard backend can be used in a private cloud to utilize a companies office pc freespace for data backup container.
there is currently no product doing this in a simple secure way (encryption, storage administration and distribution).

Generally speaking, DFS is very old and quite well researched subject (dating back to Freenet and darknet f2f sharing in general). It's just that bolting economic incentives on top of it is rather difficult.

Also, I'd recommend reading Torcoin paper to anyone curious about bandwidth incentives. To my knownledge, theres no p2p (all network participants being equal, no supernodes) solution - Tor network relies on consensus of the authority ring, and all distributed storage systems parrot Tor in this regard. In my opinion, hardcoded/elected authorities are by definition not decentralized/trustless.

[mczarnek]

i had'nt to read any further than page one last paragraph.
decentralized cloud storage is what sounds great but includes several flaws of the main idea in terms of service costs.
like point 4 states you can choose the redundancy when putting a file onto the cloud (this i also suggested in the burst storage discussion).
working with 4 copies as default is far too less to protect your files  against loss.
adding 500 copies, which is stated to be armageddon resistant, drives the costs higher than professional hosting costs.  

I agree that 4 copies is too few to be certain.. you set up enough simultaneous miners and get all 4 copies of a product and you can blackmail people to retrieve their data but personally I'd feel comfortable with 10 copies for average use.. I mean look at torrents, how often does a torrent fall apart?

And it's true that 500 copies is more expensive than professional hosting but I would believe that it truly is more secure, and less likely to be lost, lots of redundancy.  In fact if you build some version control in (depending upon the use), so it's 100 copies of 5 different versions,

Additionally, if it's encrypted, you don't trust anyone else with your data.

That being said, I bought some Maidsafe a while back, not much but a little bit.. given the recent spike, I may sell it off.  It is a complicated idea and less likely to come through than Burst, for example.

[mczarnek]

Totally different topic, has anyone around here worked Ethereum script?  I'd like to write a simple smart contract and could use some help getting started.

[AizenSou]

People I'm afraid that BURST was raped by botnet now 
I simply can't find any better explanation for the huge diff increase last week. BURST botnet is much  more difficult to detect than CPU/GPU botnet.
That pretty sucks. 

if so, i think this is also not bad. This shows me, that the someone is betting in the future of this coin, that the price will rise. Why such an effort to let a botnet mine a coin, that could not be sold, because none of the exchange has a usefull volume....

there are so much other ways to make more and instant profit with a botnet, as mine this coin.....

Seriously ? Effort ? It's an effort to make money, the maker doesn't care. He will dump his coin as long as he gets his hand to it. Your logic doesn't sound right to me.

[brandoff]

(things like buy 10k of our asset ... and you MIGHT download our opensource software, which is of course totally free and open).

^This.
I get really pissed when someone says "opensource" and then you gotta buy it.
It's outrageous to be using the "opensource brand" for their own marketing advantages and profit.
Fuck those cunts. DIAF

Storj dev here. No need to curse at us, please. You don't have to buy anything. Both the node software (https://github.com/storj/downstream-node) and farming software (https://github.com/storj/downstream-farmer) have always been available for download and usage. The funds are to help support the project, developers on the project, etc. Our testing rounds are closed tests that help us test the software with committed users under controlled conditions so we can collect data to grow and improve the network. These are also tests actively supported by the entire team.

The first two rounds are restricted to crowdsale supporters who had faith in us early on and wanted to support our project. There's no requirement to participate in group C as there will be more public testing after that. Some folks prefer to wait until then and that is completely fine.

[brandoff]

Compared to maid and storj (which are just pumped IPOs at this moment, non-mineable and with no utility), BURST makes no promises this will be at all possible. Proof of Being Reliable Storage And Not Just Someone Faking It is very, very difficult to do in reliable fashion. So far, all proposals to do this in decentralized fashion are technobabble than anything sound.

Isn't Maidsafe already doing this?  I understood that they already had something working, right?

Both maidsafe and storj are very aggresively marketing with very little to show for it. Not saying its outright scam (storj at least outlined the backbones how it could work in language which mostly makes sense. Still, their story has a lot of practical plot holes in it.). It's just a lot of snake oil dream selling for my taste (things like buy 10k of our asset ... and you MIGHT download our opensource software, which is of course totally free and open).

Storj dev here. I'd disagree; we do have lots to show for it given the short time we've been around (since March/April this year). The node and farming software we will be using for the tests are here: https://github.com/storj/downstream-node and https://github.com/storj/downstream-farmer. You can see the heartbeat library here: https://github.com/storj/heartbeat. You can download it and use how you wish. We have a dashboard up showing farmer status here: https://live.driveshare.org. This is also open-sourced (see: https://github.com/storj/downstream-dash).

Talked a bit more about the testing in this earlier response:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=731923.msg9762916#msg9762916

[pinballdude]

[---]
Have you considered to integrate this into a Torrent client? Including someking of Proof of Bandwith?

Include what into a Torrent client...? I don't understand.

I mean if somehow we could do a proof of sharing, based either on bandwidth or disk space ...

Compared to maid and storj (which are just pumped IPOs at this moment, non-mineable and with no utility), BURST makes no promises this will be at all possible. Proof of Being Reliable Storage And Not Just Someone Faking It is very, very difficult to do in reliable fashion. So far, all proposals to do this in decentralized fashion are technobabble than anything sound.

The Storj Whitepaper was released officially today at www.storj.io/storj.pdf
They also have the access plans posted at www.storj.io/earlyaccess

for some users the bandwith used is much more of a concern than storing large amounts of data. Because of this, I suspect any system like storj will have users who are willing to honestly store and provide verifications for the data they are storing, but will be unwilling to transfer this data when requested, as the bandwith used is more valuable to them than than transfer fee.

I think this can be mitigated if a file is seen as just a collection of sectors, and these sectors are distributed evenly around the network (of course multiple times). that way, if someone requests 1GB of data from the system, each individual storing data will only have to provide a few sectors of that large request, because hundreds or thousands of storers are servicing the request. The individuals storing data would store bits and peices of many different things, and would just have an ongoing stream of requests they had to service. In fact, the payment could easily be for serving requests instead of for storing in the first place. Then it pays more to serve the most requested stuff, or it gets more expensive to store stuff noone wants to request. thus, the most requested stuff gets more agressively duplicated, and the network can respond quicker.


[/quote]
The other problem would be efficiently handling the transfer payments. As retrieving a file may require retrieving many shards which may need to be transferred from multiple users each, handling payment by traditional means could result in a massive amount of transactions.
[/quote]

That is correct. if every sector hit incurs a fee that must be handled via a (blockchain) transaction, then we would have a lot of transactions of very small fees. suppose that a transaction somehow generates a unobfuscable hash, then that hash (if low enough) could be proof of winning something similar to a block. So you don't earn on every sector served, but each time you have the chance of winning a reward. Theoretically the one serving that sector might - if he won - just get his hand on all transaction fees since last block, or all filesystem related transaction fees. This way, we don't have to keep track on serves, only on requests (which is bad enough, as every request for a file would lead to an entry in a block as i see it). However if filesystem reads are paid in burst, that would certainly put a floor on the burst price. In fact, it would probably make us all quite rich, as demand for burst would likely go through the roof, as storage became == burst. If we can get as far as making the storage truly decentralized and truly anonymous an encrypted end to end on all levels, then the burst storage price could easily rise well above harddisk price.

[katlogic]

Storj dev here. No need to curse at us, please. You don't have to buy anything. Both the node software (https://github.com/storj/downstream-node) and farming software (https://github.com/storj/downstream-farmer) have always been available for download and usage. The funds are to help support the project, developers on the project, etc. Our testing rounds are closed tests that help us test the software with committed users under controlled conditions so we can collect data to grow and improve the network. These are also tests actively supported by the entire team.

I think I owe you an apology - i was somewhat wrongly assuming there is some sort of secret node code and operable testnet, and not just proof of concept server/client (which indeed do build and verify storage contracts, however dont comprise p2p network as such).

I understand that the whole idea is to just store file location on datacoin (or florincoin, or whatever you switch to tomorrow) chain and let metadisk ui look it up from there.

And that's the proverbial elephant in the room - all repositories are proof of concept code of everything, except the critical part of consensus building about farming , bandwidth or any of the other major criticism outlined above - hence the wrong assumption you're keeping some code hostage.

[mczarnek]

People I'm afraid that BURST was raped by botnet now 
I simply can't find any better explanation for the huge diff increase last week. BURST botnet is much  more difficult to detect than CPU/GPU botnet.
That pretty sucks. 

if so, i think this is also not bad. This shows me, that the someone is betting in the future of this coin, that the price will rise. Why such an effort to let a botnet mine a coin, that could not be sold, because none of the exchange has a usefull volume....

there are so much other ways to make more and instant profit with a botnet, as mine this coin.....

Seriously ? Effort ? It's an effort to make money, the maker doesn't care. He will dump his coin as long as he gets his hand to it. Your logic doesn't sound right to me.

Why do you guys think botnet?  What indicates that this is a botnet?  Do you have wallet addresses that you believe this bot net is mining into?

And this botnet is still using plotted hard drives to mine for Burst?

[brandoff]

Storj dev here. No need to curse at us, please. You don't have to buy anything. Both the node software (https://github.com/storj/downstream-node) and farming software (https://github.com/storj/downstream-farmer) have always been available for download and usage. The funds are to help support the project, developers on the project, etc. Our testing rounds are closed tests that help us test the software with committed users under controlled conditions so we can collect data to grow and improve the network. These are also tests actively supported by the entire team.

I think I owe you an apology - i was somewhat wrongly assuming there is some sort of secret node code and operable testnet, and not just proof of concept server/client (which indeed do build and verify storage contracts, however dont comprise p2p network as such).

I understand that the whole idea is to just store file location on datacoin (or florincoin, or whatever you switch to tomorrow) chain and let metadisk ui look it up from there.

And that's the proverbial elephant in the room - all repositories are proof of concept code of everything, except the critical part of consensus building about farming , bandwidth or any of the other major criticism outlined above - hence the wrong assumption you're keeping some code hostage.

Thanks for that, I appreciate it. We try to make every effort to be open and transparent and welcome level-headed criticism as it only improves the project (and already has).

We don't use Datacoin anymore and Florincoin is the current "drop-in" replacement, though yes we're looking to move that to Factom when they're ready. The blockchain will be used to store file metadata and information used by verification algos in the heartbeat library.

I've said this in a few other places, but at the end of the day most folks will only be won over when it's out there working in-the-wild and has been poked, prodded etc and that's a totally reasonable position to take given all the projects out there making promises.

After one or more of our testing rounds (used to gather actual network data), I will be building a network simulator so we can do some agent-based modeling/monte carlo sims and test network stability to attacks, economic incentivization, etc. We're trying to grow something that will have emergent behavior so understanding its phase spaces (i.e. different potential scenarios) and potentials will help a lot as we grow and help build the network (if anything I said sounds like technobabble would be happy to elaborate). I also want to layer in things like quorum sensing over time, but we have to walk (and have folks see/verify we can actually walk) before we start jogging/running.

[katlogic]

After one or more of our testing rounds (used to gather actual network data), I will be building a network simulator so we can do some agent-based modeling/monte carlo sims and test network stability to attacks, economic incentivization, etc. We're trying to grow something that will have emergent behavior so understanding its phase spaces (i.e. different potential scenarios) and potentials will help a lot as we grow and help build the network (if anything I said sounds like technobabble would be happy to elaborate). I also want to layer in things like quorum sensing over time, but we have to walk (and have folks see/verify we can actually walk) before we start jogging/running.

Indeed. I'd love to see your sugarscape model to tackle this (yes, emergent swarms is the correct answer, think bittorrent tit-for-tat on steroids), instead of the fairly obvious contracts fluff you published today with great fanfare. After all, it's what peter, mike et al were preaching about 2 years by now and theres not much new to be said about it.