• So for some reason Adam switched addresses for his rain. No idea why but figured its interesting. BURST-7B5Q-7AZQ-JX4S-6HWUL was the old rain address, he sent all funds in that account to BURST-H22M-GQCY-MM5D-G3W8X and is now raining from that account....I wonder if this is some kind of misdirection to make it seem like he has more funds than he actually does or something weird I really dont know.

  • @socal we have to keep an eye on .ninja and burst mining club pool to chek if they are doing something bad, meanwhile the SPAM produce the network hiccup

  • @ccminer I've heard that many times and I do not really get it. Im not so educated about the whole system, could you explain it to me real quick? What does giving out hundreds of small transaction do to the network? What is the network hiccup?

    And, if the hiccup already starts here, how can the network handle the transactions if Burst gets as popular as bitcoin for example?

  • @theoneandonely basicly every 4 min the network miners forge a block. that block is the digital record of all the transaction that took place durring the forging time. the problum is the blocks can only hold so many transaction details i think it's 255 or around that number ... so essentuly the burst network has a MAX speed of 255 transactions every aprox 4 min ... you can "bump" your self to the front of the line by paying more per transaction fee . but they still get pushed throu fist come first serve in order of most payed - least pay. the "rain" thou a nice bit of promotion send's out thousands of transactions at 1 time and on top of it are being sent out at higher than minimum transaction fee .... and clogs the whole system up... effectivly it's artificialy doing to Burst what Bitcoin is trying to develop a solution to because it HAS to it legit has that many transactons..... now down the road if burst stay's on its growth curb we will also need to come up with a solution as well but we are not there yet. Pro's it has cause talk about solution's to the issue FAR in advance befor we actuly need it , Con's we are currently having network delay issues caused by artificial Transaction inflation.

  • @Gibsalot Thank you, you explained it very well. :) But couldn't a solution be to make the block size bigger? Or is that not possible or would threaten the security or something?

  • @theoneandonely tec yes thats a simple solution but then you get the issue of the ever growing block chain growing much faster. anyone running a local wallet has to store a copy of the block chain on the computer and it's growing in size every 4 min so you would want to keep the block size as small as posible or in a few years you end up with GIGANTIC data base and will turn people away from running node's witch will weaken the network

  • Ah okay, thank you I understand now.

  • @theoneandonely several solutions i have see tossed around is lower the block target forge from 4 min to 2 min and cut block forge payout by 50% to keep the minting of new coins the same but dubble the # of transaction's , the con to this is you also dubble the work done by mining equip and reduce HDD life, also it would add Electic cost. another popular one is to make the blocks bigger like you sugested and offset the size with a Data base "lite" wallet witch would only store a protion of the block chain like say the last 100k block's but make anyone running a pool or solo mining use the full block chain , with a drive for the people that can also host full chain's.

  • @Gibsalot You sum it very well but i am pretty sure those are not the only options and i know there is another backup plans to solve this issues... Many things can be done if we think outside the box and we have a lot of good people around here that are amazing in exactly that xP

  • @gpedro im sure there are many more possible solutions being discussed and the final solution has probly not even been thought of yet. i was just going for the ones i have seen discussed in a few places.

  • @Gibsalot Well the 2nd one seems pretty solid in my eyes right now. And people could still vouluntarily download the full blockchain if they want... But I dont get the 1st solution. Wouldnt halving the block time (4 minutes to 2 minutes) also be doubeling the transaction number which means the size could theoretically double per block. Which eventually means the same problem as the 2nd one only that the 2nd solution also provides a solution to this problem!

  • @gibsalot I think you are on the right track here. Some of us have been here since the coins infancy and certain people have brought it to where we are now. At this point a plan to fix it is the next step. Create a special committe to put forward solutions with the pros and cons. We do advise from a new person who has experience with altcoins and wallets not sure who that could be. Someone who has a long standing coin now?

  • @Burstde a fix will need to be put in place eventuly , i dont think we are in any rush to do so as the community still has room to grow. what we need is a constructive group disscussion for anyone in the community to throw out idea's and anyone can way the pro's and con's , also with actual coder's who know the system to way in and say weather or not thats acctuly how it work's or could be done. im not a coder at all, im self taught computer litterite lol i can install windows and most prog but have trouble changing setings on my phone lol.

  • Well why don't we be a test case for increasing block size, let's be conservative and say x2, that way we can get a gage on how much block chain bloat occurs.

  • @socal increasing size need hardfork

  • @Gibsalot what about a variable block size? (255 to 65025) that would allow the system to handle spikes.

  • @socal like @LithStud stated any change to the way blocks work would be a hard fork, witch means the whole network has to switch to the new chain, or risk a split in the community and burst becoming two coins. @iKnow0 that would be a def contender in my book no idea what it would take to code somthing like that im sure its possible.

  • @Gibsalot I know it would take a hardfork and now that I think about it I know Adam and his goons would fight it just because it's an issue he is causing and the solution came from us

  • @socal i dont think he would fight aginsed a hard fork , hes a smart guy and he knows that for burst to get as big as he says it will a change will have to happen , i see him more fighting over witch solution is best vs no fix at all.

  • I hope that doesn't happen..

Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to Burst - Efficient HDD Mining was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.