hahahah, I might have to go through the trouble of proving you wrong. that is if you are listed back on exchanges.


and how do you figure you'll attract miners? with the new gpu miner, miners can not only take a loss from burning their cpu, now they can do the same thing with their gpu?

let's face it, without a reward there will be no mining.

So far only you, me and CPUcoins want to fix BSTY.

Apparently the team has top men working on it :P:P:P, so they wait, and everybody else.
I assume most the coins are held by the BSTY team, that's why nobody else is complaining.
I don't know why they don't want to fix it. Waiting like this and doing nothing will kill it for sure.

About difficulty, this rises when miners join, and decreases when they leave. And miners join and leave mostly because of the block reward. Since the reward dropped 7x but the coin value didn't even increase 2x, everybody left. The solution is simple, increase block reward to attract miners.

Anyhow if BSTY refuses to do it, I will start a new coin, perhaps you can join me there. It will be a CPU coin, so anybody can mine. It's good when you hold a coin, to also mine it, to contribute to it's security. And with a cpu coin anyone can do it.

Regards

Glad to see some genuine interest in my topic!


The best CPU/GPU hybrid right now would be Monero (XMR) with cryptonight algo, which is a "big" coin. The advantage is 2,3x for the GPU.
There is also scrypt-chacha, than can be adjusted to be CPU/GPU or CPU only (though some specialized hardware could still be created).

I was proposing a cryptonote fork (like xmr), where we would also fix the recent security issues found with xmr, and use scrypt-chacha instead of cryptonight.
And use the inflationary coin distribution I proposed.

In the usual bitcoin model, that all coins now use, the biggest reward goes to the users who mined it FIRST. The advantage of this approach is for advertising. It was good for bitcoin, because there wasn't a cryptocoin community at that time, so this kind of incentive was necessary.  However, we can see it fail for altcoins, one after another, effectively turning all of them into ponzi schemes.
So essentially, an altcoin should reward the hashpower, not being there first. I think it makes a lot more sense, and it actually does encourage the coin to grow to millions of users. This is what we need now!

If I have some supporters, I will write the code.

I see things the other way around. Most people buy computers because they have other needs than mining. Most probably don't even consider mining when they buy it.
However if they later find they can earn a few bucks each month mining, while the computer is idle, why not. It may even turn out that mining will amortize the whole computer cost within a year or two, so this would be really sweet. Lots of people will join in to mine. So the mining reward is very important, if you want to get all these users. And you do want to get all of them, to make a coin secure.
Consider a coin with 100 million home-miners. That's pretty tough even for a government to attack. If not impossible. If the incentive is there, they will come eventually.

If you want fire-and-forget miner, most already are, they set priority to IDLE, or even a better way to do it is to set it to  PROCESS_MODE_BACKGROUND_BEGIN (win32).
And you can tune it a bit, if it still hinders your performance, so you won't feel it at all when running (other than hearing the vents revving).

That in particular won't be too good, but the majority of cpus are decent enough to turn a profit, if the right reward is there. What I'm talking about is bringing mining to the masses.

I'm not criticizing GPUs in general. But the fact is that the wide majority of users don't have a GPU that will turn a profit when mining. Once again, my goal would be getting *most* people into mining.

The advantage over purpose built mining rigs is simply security. You can't compete with the kind of computing power that all the average users combined would bring into cryptos.

GPUs are still ok, many users still have them, and they're readily available at your local computer store.
However GPU algorithms can be implemented into ASICs if the incentive is there, that's why they're evil. So it's easy for a government to attack these kinds of coins.

And the worst case scenario is bitcoin. Governments, have the ability to do a 51% percent attack on bitcoin right now at no cost, if they pass a law to seize all the ASIC farms.
You probably already know, but since it's a public thread, let me make the point that ASIC farms exist because of the economics of manufacturing and purchasing ASICs, you'll get them a lot cheaper if you buy this hardware in mass. You can even develop it, at this level.
And I believe (though I might be incorrect) that cex.io alone has enough hashpower to 51% attack bitcoin right now. If they're legitimate they have no incentive to do it, but still they put all the hardware in one place, ready for the government to seize. Hence, the evilness.

Victor,

I am repeating myself, but the solution is simple, from this universe, planet Earth.

Increase block reward, at least to 347. But if you want action, increase it even more.  They are on the false assumption that miners will then dump, but miners can't dump below the electricity cost, so there's a floor price in my inflationary scenario.

If you are an investor/trader buy from miners at about the electricity cost, and put sell orders higher. And you will profit!

It does not appeal to ponzi gamblers, you can't really buy coins and after an year sell at 100x, but you already know what the floor price is so you can constantly be making 5-10% on your trades, with little risk of dumping.

Thank you for your response! One of the few constructive ones I got so far.

that's exactly the kind of miner a cpu coin needs. just that it needs 100,000's of them.

not sure exactly what you mean by that. you would mine even if your costs are higher than your reward?
with cpu it's good that your only cost is the electric bill, the computer is not a cost, as you already use it for other purposes.

It's not you! I had the same feeling over and over until I came up with a theory.
Some coins get screwed from the start. That's for sure.
But all coins get screwed eventually because of the deflationary model.  Or at least that's my theory.
The faster the deflate, the sooner they'll be doomed. BSTY is a great example of this.
So wait, did I just make a blasphemy here? I think so! It's like the cryptobible says that inflation is the doom of normal money, and their deflationary model is the solution. WRONG!

Let me explain why:
The faster a coin reduces reward, the more obvious the following effect will be.
At start there is the highest block reward, and the lowest hashpower.
So the early miners will get tons of coins, at a very very low cost. So there it is: inflation right from the start. The bitcoin model fails to reduce inflation, it simply puts inflation right there from the beginning.
The only way not to fail now is that these early miners will pretend they never mined the coin at all, and never sell it. This is absurd and insane. Ultimately people need money and will sell some of it.

So my workaround to this problem is to have the block reward proportional to the difficulty. This creates inflation still, however it changes the holders of these inflated coin. You will get inflated coins, but for higher hashpower, so there is a minimum amount you'd be willing to sell for. You need to compensate for electric costs, so this will help. I'm not sure if it eventually works out, but at least it's a workaround for the initial inflation issue. I'd say it's better to give many coins to people who invested lots of electricity than to the first people. There is no good reason why the early miners should have it all, not at all. This is simply PONZI and that's why all of them fail.

Real money works with inflation too, their inflation mechanism may be different than what I'm proposing but they do work better than cryptocoins.

My inflation mechanism is similar to farming. If more people start farming wheat, more flour will be produced. That's what happens in real world. So either the flour price drops, or the demand increases and then is successful.


They haven't got the unfair profit, because I stopped them when they were just about to get it. That's why they're mad at me.
But I haven't created the problem, I just exposed it. Having low hashpower is the problem, and is the result of their reward structure.
Their profit relied on nobody exposing it, and I'm sure they didn't even realize they had the problem in the first place. You did, but I'm pretty sure they didn't.

If a GPU miner can be made for this coin, then it's a good thing to make it, it simply exposes that this is not a cpu coin. Or if the performance advantage is not so big, then it will be a CPU/GPU coin.

GPU coins are ultimately evil because it moves mining from the average user to the professional miners, therefore creating centralization, and making it possible for a single entity to have over 51%.
With CPU mining a professional miner cannot compete with the casual user, who has the hardware for free, he only pays the electric bill for mining. But for the casual user to get  in and make a difference, a lot of them have to join in. So there must be a reward higher than the electricity cost. This is hardly the case with BSTY and not really the case with any other coins either.
If there would always be some profit for the casual user, then millions will eventually join in, making it the most secure coin ever created.

So yeah, lets increase the reward, that's the only solution, GPU or not. Also minimum reward that makes sense is 347, but I advocate to experiment with higher reward, let's see what happens.
It must attract many miners, therefore it will have a strong hashpower. Miners ultimately give value to the coin, so we may actually see a coin value increase.
Other thing that can give value to a coin would be anonymity, I also proposed it and am willing to code it.


Anyhow, I started this takeover thread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1016617.0;all

This message will probably be deleted shortly after posting by your beloved Mr. Bruce Porter Jr.

Thank you for your response! One of the few constructive ones I got so far.

that's exactly the kind of miner a cpu coin needs. just that it needs 100,000's of them.

not sure exactly what you mean by that. you would mine even if your costs are higher than your reward?
with cpu it's good that your only cost is the electric bill, the computer is not a cost, as you already use it for other purposes.

It's not you! I had the same feeling over and over until I came up with a theory.
Some coins get screwed from the start. That's for sure.
But all coins get screwed eventually because of the deflationary model.  Or at least that's my theory.
The faster the deflate, the sooner they'll be doomed. BSTY is a great example of this.
So wait, did I just make a blasphemy here? I think so! It's like the cryptobible says that inflation is the doom of normal money, and their deflationary model is the solution. WRONG!

Let me explain why:
The faster a coin reduces reward, the more obvious the following effect will be.
At start there is the highest block reward, and the lowest hashpower.
So the early miners will get tons of coins, at a very very low cost. So there it is: inflation right from the start. The bitcoin model fails to reduce inflation, it simply puts inflation right there from the beginning.
The only way not to fail now is that these early miners will pretend they never mined the coin at all, and never sell it. This is absurd and insane. Ultimately people need money and will sell some of it.

So my workaround to this problem is to have the block reward proportional to the difficulty. This creates inflation still, however it changes the holders of these inflated coin. You will get inflated coins, but for higher hashpower, so there is a minimum amount you'd be willing to sell for. You need to compensate for electric costs, so this will help. I'm not sure if it eventually works out, but at least it's a workaround for the initial inflation issue. I'd say it's better to give many coins to people who invested lots of electricity than to the first people. There is no good reason why the early miners should have it all, not at all. This is simply PONZI and that's why all of them fail.

Real money works with inflation too, their inflation mechanism may be different than what I'm proposing but they do work better than cryptocoins.

My inflation mechanism is similar to farming. If more people start farming wheat, more flour will be produced. That's what happens in real world. So either the flour price drops, or the demand increases and then is successful.


They haven't got the unfair profit, because I stopped them when they were just about to get it. That's why they're mad at me.
But I haven't created the problem, I just exposed it. Having low hashpower is the problem, and is the result of their reward structure.
Their profit relied on nobody exposing it, and I'm sure they didn't even realize they had the problem in the first place. You did, but I'm pretty sure they didn't.

If a GPU miner can be made for this coin, then it's a good thing to make it, it simply exposes that this is not a cpu coin. Or if the performance advantage is not so big, then it will be a CPU/GPU coin.

GPU coins are ultimately evil because it moves mining from the average user to the professional miners, therefore creating centralization, and making it possible for a single entity to have over 51%.
With CPU mining a professional miner cannot compete with the casual user, who has the hardware for free, he only pays the electric bill for mining. But for the casual user to get  in and make a difference, a lot of them have to join in. So there must be a reward higher than the electricity cost. This is hardly the case with BSTY and not really the case with any other coins either.
If there would always be some profit for the casual user, then millions will eventually join in, making it the most secure coin ever created.

So yeah, lets increase the reward, that's the only solution, GPU or not. Also minimum reward that makes sense is 347, but I advocate to experiment with higher reward, let's see what happens.
It must attract many miners, therefore it will have a strong hashpower. Miners ultimately give value to the coin, so we may actually see a coin value increase.
Other thing that can give value to a coin would be anonymity, I also proposed it and am willing to code it.

OMG this Bruce Porter Jr. never sleeps. Maybe he's a bot. Maybe he's even a bot-net! Who knows?!! He deleted this one in less than 10 seconds. Whooppeee!
Have no fear though! no deletions going on in my thread.

FYI BTC is on a nosedive for more than a year now, not a good example. And don't teach me economics and cryptocoins, when you don't even understand what's the hashpower used for.

Pay the miners if you want them to mine.  It's that simple. You holders think that people should mine for free, and wait for rewards in 20 years. Mining costs money. Pay us!  Not everybody is into ponzi games, but if you pay we do the mining for you, that's all.

Right now as I proposed it, the reward will stay at 1024 for the next 4 years.

If the 347 reward would have stayed there for 4 years, you wouldn't have this problem right now.

Let me make this clear for you, you do not have this problem because of me, but because of the hashrate. If you had 100 MH I couldn't have attacked you, if you had 1GH even better. If you cut payments on block 17291, that's what you get.

But if you keep it like this, you are all bagholders.
Let's give it a few weeks, until you are desperate, then bstdev will make the increase himself. I don't care if it's now or in 2 weeks, I don't have any BSTY, all I had I threw it away.

Sure enough, another deletion from the GlobalBoost marketing thread, by Mr. Bruce Porter Jr., a well known free speech activist.

I would love to really help you out, however I haven't created an altcoin yet.
But let me do my best anyhow.

the cost can be 0
  - you just change some constants in the bitcoin code (or whatever code you're forking)
  - tons of coins were made like this. some even had some success (sadly!)

the cost can be a few man hours worth of coding
  - change the constants and change the PoW algorithm, with one that exists, but not yet in a coin.
  - tons of these exist, and it's a good idea to have alternatives to SHA2 in the cryptoworld

make an original PoW algorithm.
  - you'd better be a cryptographer though, or else it's probably not going to be secure
  - do any of these exist?


On the other hand, the costs can be quite high if you design a new coin from scratch.
   - nxt
   - ripple
   - CryptoNote
   - What else?
   - costs, revenue? ask them!


But keep in mind, that once you publish the source code you no longer control anything, so the revenue must be from collateral sources.
But unless you are designing a new coin, for forking coins it's a simple matter of advertising costs and returns. marketing, or whatever you want to call it.

So, generally speaking, the revenue will not come from you owning the coin, because you can't do that with free software, but rather from generating this new potential source of revenue.
But keep in mind that other people who haven't invested can exploit it too, and it's their right to do so, being free software.

sure, all noobs do 51% attacks, everyday.

So why did they start it with 347 then, you should have used 50 from the beginning.
I tell you why, because they're douchebag salesmen, that's why.

BSTY coin is already dead, can't kill a dead coin. It's been dead since 1/12/2015, when they dropped the reward

Your old accounts mean what? that you're long time bullshiters. Ok some idiots will follow you.
Me, I've proven myself, I don't need an old account.
Did Satoshi Nakamoto have any reputation when he started BTC? He used a new account as well. But he did provide the code. Like I did.
Your bullshit salesmen tactics don't work in the cryptoworld. Just sell your computers, you're too stupid for the internets.


That's great, make sure they pay you real BTC, not that fake BSTY.
Anyhow, it won't solve their problem, why waste your gpu time and energy to not get paid on BSTY, when you can mine DRK. or whatever. anything pays better than ZERO.

I just have to point out that GPU miner would NOT fix the issue. They will still have low hashrate because of the low rewards.
I might no longer be able to 51% attack myself, but somebody with 50 GPU's can.  And there are plenty of people who have that. That's why I explained how to do the 51% attack, so everybody knows how.

But anyway, GlobalBoost is a bunch of salesmen and an IT guy who they call dev.  They can't make a GPU miner. And at this reward, I don't see why anybody would make one for them.
They can change algorithm, but still nobody would have incentive to mine. There will still be many people who can 51% attack.
Or they can make PoS and then it's going to dump. Why would anyone invest in that crap? Buy coin with fake volume, from douche salesmen, everybody knows better... I hope. Right?

Only fix is increasing the reward.

CPU coin is probably the best way fight centralization, but you do need to pay the miners, so that the average joe makes at least a few cents a day, using his idle cpu time.  If that can be achieved, then it's a matter of getting millions of users to mine, and then not even botnets can attack. So it all boils down to giving incentive for mining. And that's exactly what I requested.

While I support the continuation of this coin, with the 1024 reward, I believe that a GPU miner may be feasible for Yescrypt. Once again, BSTY dev cannot possibly make one. Nor would it do you any good unless reward is increased.

Then allow me to retort!

Your coins are worth NOTHING as in ZERO, due to Bittrex delisting.
Your coin is insecure, and it continues to be. If you support the BSTY team, you lose all value of your coins.

All the GlobalBoost trolls, please keep posting here, you are just making my point.
A coin is not secured by fake posts and fake volume, but with hashpower.



edit:
You are the moron. You just understand what's happened. You mine and hold a lemon!
The coin is insecure, if you were smart, you would start mining the 1024 reward version, if you don't want to waste your electricity and be able to sell your coins.

In any case, thank you for your comments!



And sorry? how exactly am I a greedy bastard? I've made no money on this!
I am trying to save the coin. And what I've mined I sent to the bstdev, it's worthless anyway.
blelow are the tx ids
8149.977 f70c1001ce72b3680774859f26e54d1fe83fd952ddc697cd5ae62e7bdb3ddef7
1500       56f75a505a446a02401fac06b8bbd357d3a9eac86f3a98f59fa408dc77b08e31
200         d31108b1635107f578a1c6ae68e01d7a2c485cb47c8c022a51041134c53b16eb

They have survived nothing! I simply stopped, following the Bittrex delisting.
They still don't have hashpower, I can do it again anytime, and I posted instructions on how to do it.

I am not a terrorist. They don't have the hashpower to secure the coin, I exposed this and then stopped.



As for the profit calculator, it gives valid results only if the hashpower stays unchanged, if a few miners join, difficulty will increase and the profits will drop. That's why nobody joins.
Besides, you can't sell the coin anyway, bittrex banned them because it's a scam, so your profit will be 0.

They DELETED all my posts on the BSTY thread. Although I speak the truth, and I haven't done any doublespend.

Anyway, what I think we should do, is go ahead with the fork.

And we talk to bittrex to list BSTY2.
BSTY is not yet delisted, but give it another 51%, if they ever enable it again and go figure...

So anybody who's has BSTY, or simply wants to mine, please install the modified wallet. Everything you have on BSTY before block 29200, will be preserved in BSTY2

And let's get going.  Please post to this thread, and let people know about it.
Perhaps there is a pool owner who would like to make a BSTY2 pool.
If not, I will setup a pool. We get some hashpower in.  I can help with that , until more miners join in.

BSTY and BSTY2 will have the same coins until block 29200, but since there's no real chance of BSTY ever being listed again, BSTY2 will be the only one to continue

So please post your comments to this thread.  I'd like to see who will support it.

Nobody deletes messages here.

It is no lie. The 51% attack can easily be made by anybody, because your coin is INSECURE.
Bittrex agrees! they delisted your coin.

As of now, anybody can do it like this:

in main.cpp:
bool ProcessBlock(CValidationState &state, CNode* pfrom, CBlock* pblock, CDiskBlockPos *dbp)
{
   if(pfrom!=NULL) { return true;   }   // refuse foreign blocks   <<<< INSERT THIS LINE

    // Check for duplicate


Then compile, start daemon, start pool, and if you can get like 50 computers in your pool, you'll take them over

Mining BSTY is a joke right now!

They completely became insecure 3 month ago, when they dropped reward from 347 down to 50, but kept quiet about this, the whole time.

We shall see about that!

Let's not forget that you are the premine scammers, not me. I exposed your scam, just when you were in the middle of making fake volume on bittrex.

Let's see what the community has to say on an uncensored thread.





EDIT


I wasn't hostile at all. I didn't steal anything by double spending. And all it took for the 51% attack was 50 computers.
And now I'm not even attacking it. I just demonstrated the security problem, that's all.

I started this thread mainly because their thread is self-moderated.

I have recently demonstrated a 51% attack on GlobalBoost-Y.
( Orignial Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=775289.0 )

This was possible because of the extremely low hashpower the coin currently has.
Note that I did not perform any double spend. This was just to demonstrate the vulnerability.

The coin lost most of it's miners after the block reward dropped from 347 directly to 50.  This is a masked premine.

Immediately after launching the attack I asked the developers to increase the block reward, to serve as incentive for miners, so that the coin would no longer would be exposed to this attack. They categorically refused. Then I cancelled a few small transactions (about 3000 BSTY in total) and Bittrex immediately delisted the coin.

I am starting this thread in hopes that we can mount a community take over, to salvage the coin.

If you hold BSTY, or you are interested in mining it, please post your comments here.

BSTY original thread is self-moderated and began deleting some of my messages.
This is not. I cannot censor any messages here.


MY BLOCK REWARD PROPOSAL

https://github.com/bstymaster/GlobalBoost-Y

Please note that I haven't yet updated the checkpoints. This is just a preliminary proposal. Awaiting feedback, and then will set the checkpoint pubkey.

Before block 29200, the rewards will remain the same.
After that, valid block reward will be 1024, and it will be halving every 240000 blocks.

This will fix the 51% attack vulnerability as it will give adequate incentive to miners.


int64 static GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64 nFees)
{
    int64 nSubsidy = 1024 * COIN;

    if (nHeight <17291)
    {
        nSubsidy = 347 * COIN;
    }
    else
     {  
        if(nHeight < 29200 )
        {
           nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
        }
          else
       {
          int halvings = (nHeight-29200) / 240000;
     // Force block reward to zero when right shift is undefined.
       if (halvings >= 64)
      return nFees;
   
       // Subsidy is cut in half every 240,000 blocks which will occur approximately every 4 years.
       nSubsidy >>= halvings;
       }
     }
    return nSubsidy + nFees;
}

With that reward drop they would be vulnerable to anything. Nobody would mine it after the drop, so anybody with a GPU or ASIC farm would do the same. Before the reward drop I don't think I could have done a 51%. And even if I could, why would I?
All coins are vulnerable to this, but BSTY with the reward decrease asked for it real bad. If they increased the reward like I asked, I would soon not have had 51% anymore.

They wanted to SCAM everyone with their masked PREMINE.  Now they're the BAGHOLDERS.

They said I was not being polite. Maybe so, but most importantly, I was RIGHT!  Now bittrex kicked their asses, I guess it's over.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA