Well Bitcoin started with free CPU cycles on people's desktops and now it is all expensive ASICs. Eventually the resource burning rate will be close to what you can get out of mining if security is tied to tangible goods or people will invest more to join the mining race.
Seems to me Burst is more like POS than POW, with disk space as the Stake. How do you solve the multiple signing problem? It does not cost much to sign both branches when there is a fork in Burst.
Currently we don't.. but keep in mind a 'Nothing at Stake' attack would require more than 100% of the network mining on the alternative chain in order to 51% attack the network. And short term, it makes sense for miners to sign both forks, one will win and the other one dies. But the one that wins will be stronger for it. So it's not a huge problem even in it's current form.
However, we do have another trick up our selves to provide extra security though that makes it a non-issue.. give me a few days, maybe till next weekend, and I'll share it with you in that paper I messaged you about.
In POR, how does it provide ASIC resistance? Wouldn't ASICs still get better POW results and therefore more votes?