Topic: [BBR] Boolberry: Privacy and Security - Guaranteed Since 2014 - page 118. (Read 1210779 times)

Amuse us

Minergate and Chainradar went online in the same day. Should I state the obvious?

Today, Chainradar.com get back for Bbr! Great and have hope have best dev for this coin

@smooth, what are your thoughts about BBR forking monero and making Wild Keccak asic friendly?

Minergate Block Explorer working again! It is currently updating... wow look at that increase in the hashrate! Great job guys

https://minergate.com/blockchain/bbr/blocks

Hi guys, I cant seem to connect or sync my wallet whatsoever, it gives me 0 connections on the wallet qt and connections failed in console.
What nodes should we use? I tried the previosly posted method:
--add-priority-node 66.228.33.249:10101 --add-priority-node 59.120.166.36:10101 --add-priority-node 62.201.213.25:10101 --add-priority-node 95.85.21.33:10101 --add-priority-node 107.170.97.197:10101
but did not work.

Here is a screenshot of the console
https://snag.gy/nPsGtd.jpg https://snag.gy/nPsGtd.jpg

Any help would be appreciated. Is it still worth mining on cpu too?

The text I've put in bold is not an "assertion" but rather a disclosive, conditional statement of my personal position.

I'm not conclusively asserting you were part of the original Rune group of yore; I'm merely stating that I will assume so until proven otherwise.

So excuse the fuck out of parsimonious silly old me for being unwilling to multiply entities needlessly.   

Your strenuous objections to Occam's Razor are duly noted.  As is the hypocritical performative contradiction of claiming "nothing but apathy" while writing several argumentative paragraphs of self-congratulatory proclamations regarding your sweepingly munificent intentions.

Don't take it personally.  Or do.  I sincerely don't GAF.  This is B I T C O I N T A L K - the fiery crucible wherein we purify those unworthy of serving Supreme Master Satoshi.

Speaking of disclosure, what other handles have you used on this BBS?


The conflict is all in your mind, an artifact of your lack of understanding.

I can't fault you for that, as I too was previously chasing the unicorn of "ASIC resistant" PoW.

But that is an entirely wrongheaded paradigm, because any PoW may be performed by a sufficiently complex (and correspondingly expensive) ASIC.

Straining to avoid this inevitability is counterproductive, as the more complexity we load onto the PoW function, the higher the barriers to ASIC production become, leading to only the most relatively well-funded entities being given an edge over their competition.

Simple PoWs like sha256 (at least initially) keep barriers to entry as low as possible, increasing the number of potential competing firms and helping the ASIC market (and hashrate division) tend optimally towards market perfection.

This concept is fascinatingly parallel to the idea of CONOP (cost of node option), the metric by which we measure Bitcoin's decentralization.  Let's dub it COAO - Cost Of Asic Option.   

Wild Keccak's conflation of mining functionality and blockchain (IE well-connected full node) maintenance is sublime genius, but its increasingly higher memory requirements are a fool's errand.  EG, in AD 2036, we don't want only nation-states to be capable of producing competitive BBR ASICs.

For a successful e-cash coin, the ASIC arms race is inevitable, so we must accept and lean in to embrace it while seeking to keep the competition within as healthy as possible.

That goal is accomplished with ASIC-friendly PoWs and forestalled by (pseudo-)resistant ones.  Bitcoin is the best example of this notion.

Hence my proposal for Feral Keccak.

Yeah, again I have nothing but apathy for this baseless, immature and ultimately inconsequential assertion, and is one of the dumbest theories I've been confronted with on this project.

Dont take that one personally, these are the words that most accurately describe how I feel when reading it. Feel free to consider it a defensive diversion tactic to rationalize a conclusion you already made. The reason it is inconsequential is because it will become clear when my organization engages in other public blockchain projects.

The goal is to improve distressed networks or make general improvements in the blockchain space, and weed out the dramatic baggage that blockchain development has had in favor of a more standardized and professional development process. This argument is exhibit A of one of the frustrations that motivated me to pursue my company's goals.


Interesting ideas here, some conflicting. You dont like the asic arms race but want to modify wild keccak to be asic friendly?

Also, I like your idea of Feral Keccak - great name! 

That's a pretty sweet idea, i.e. BBR is still a BCN fork with WK, just a lot further upstream to where we want to be.

Icebreaker, shouldn't there be a good mix of light and full nodes in the network, to compensate for the loss of pruning in your scenario?

Until I know who the original Rune group was and you are (thus being able to ascertain with certainty overlap or lack thereof), I'll use Occam's Razor and avoid multiplying entities needlessly.

Regardless...

Since Monero has waaay more post-Bytecoin work done on it, and the PoW is designed to be modular, it seems easier to (re)start from there and swap out CryptoNote for Wild Keccak than to keep the rest of CZ's legacy code and doom yourself to an eternity of shoehorning into it the latest XMR pulls.

It would be a clean break, although you'd lose the bit of pruning CZ added.

You could also modify Wild Keccak to use be as ASIC friendly as possible (IE reduce the memory req and stop its growth), to prevent or at least forestall monopolization by well funded entities.  You may call it Feral Keccak.  

To me the beauty of WK is that it forces miners to maintain or at least be close to full nodes (Satoshi's original design), not the pointless/counterproductive ASIC arms race acceleration.

eh most of the post wasnt about you specifically, it was about your influence on less tech savvy lurkers. My post should serve to clarify the difference between fork normenclature as there are other people who have expressed concern about blockchain divergence if two clients emerged

It isnt pulling, but there is a lot of copy and pasting involved

Your suggestion of forking monero and making transactions compatible with existing boolberry clients is interesting, the code for the wild keccak algorithm and transaction formation is largely compartmentalized, ill look into it before dismissing it and see what is involved

What would happen if you just assumed I wasnt part of the original rune group, rainbows and butterflies and an awesome bbr daemon?

Bruh, I've been here since 2011.  I solved 50 BTC blocks with cgminer before there was stratum, much less ASICs.  No need to ELI5 the difference between a software fork and blockchain fork.

Not even sure where you get the idea I'm confusing the two, as I never mentioned blockchain forks, intentional or otherwise.  Seems like a handwavy distraction and/or attempt to impugn my credibility/expertise.

BBR's and XMR's codebases have drifted apart from their common Bytecoin origin, so you can't simply "pull" things like LMDB, RingCT, etc into BBR.  Of course you can reuse a lot of the work done for Monero, but it's still going to take 100s of hours to adapt the code for BBR, test it, and keep doing that as Monero moves forward.

That's why I suggested it would be easier to fork XMR's code, modifying it with Wild Keccak replacing CryptoNight, than to go the other way.

Since there's no way to verify you are not related to the original Rune pushing group, the only thing I learned from your post is that you are almost certainly not CZ.  And that's not because you claimed it, but because you do not write like he does (native English speaker vs Slavglish).

Hi.
Thats exactly what happened though

I read alot of your posts and there are several assumptions that lead to conclusions hard to give rebuttals to, so I'll try to address the assumptions.

First and foremost it seems you are conflating software fork with blockchain fork. Software forks are part of open source development and is the only way you, I or anyone can make modifications to open source projects like Boolberry. None of the modifications that have been done cause forks in thr blockchain. Development is ongoing, you can follow on github, or the bi weekly updates, or slack, and we havent released any binaries because it isnt ready yet. You can compile from source and run the "rune" edition if you want right now, like others do. There is also a java boolberry client in development too that you can build from source. It would be misinformed to say it failed when nothing was released, it is an open source project.

These seem to be things shaking your confidence in boolberry for reasons that are irrelevant. The updated client allows for other services (web wallets, block explorers, bitsquare, etc). This isnt bitcoin unlimited, there is no blockchain fork. The c++ client that CZ, clintar2 , and more originally worked on is being updated so that I and others can build more infrastructure on top of it, whether other people use it or not. It doesnt effect how transactions are relayed across the network, so it is not a blockchain fork. Im not really sure how many ways to spell this out, but it seems misunderstanding of how blockchains work is shaking confidence in people looking for a leader.

Nothing that I or CZ have ever done or will do will cause a fork in the boolberry blockchain. There is already an open request to merge the code changes in my fork with his open source repository. There is also a work in progress java client being written from scratch in javajared's github repo, because he wants to. This is just extra information to help you amd others form objective opinions before some of the farfetched conclusions Ive been reading. A lot of what Ive been reading just dont matter, but if it is really creating the semblance of a cloud over the viability of this project then Im trying to address them.

CZ's code is really good, having dug through it over the last few months, and I and others continue to develop on top of it mostly pulling code from Monero. There are not "1000 developer hours" necessary to bring this network up to speed.

It would be great to work more closely with CZ, but it is still surprising to me that you and others are looking for an endorsement despite all the transparency into what is going on and the decentralized nature of blockchains. I wouldnt count on that at this point, also doesnt matter. If CZ actually did push updates to the open source code (this hasnt happened since september 2015), I will merge those changes in to the copy I work on. It would push the project ahead, he suggested he has done the database work that I want to do. The copy I have has RPC server updates. It is only a net positive, I haven't felt the need to explain this but now I see other peoples line of thinking, so I hope that helps.

Second, regarding RUNE and a previous dwarven name change. Myself and other analysts skimmed threads about boolberry and saw that thread. For distinctive purposes the name is just homage to that point in time. The official stance is that my company experiences nothing but apathy to drama related to it in this community. Ive been consistent about the utility and scarcity improvements that I see here and will continue improving the client towards. We can talk about branding when applicable, it is primarily to let others know the project isnt dead.

Come to the slack channel on occassion. It will be easier to chat there about your remaining concerns. Feel free to post our conversations here for transparency.

..

That should be interesting...

Greetings fellow traders,

We're working on an in-depth interview with crypto_zoidberg that we'll be publishing on coinopoly.xyz in the near future. The goal of the interview is to help bring clarity to the speculation surrounding the future of Boolberry.

>> I'm still buying, all about lowering my avg buy price now>>

Thanks for the update crypjunkie! It does appear to be a terrific time to buy BBR right now

It seems reasonable that BBR could trade $.30-50 in the short term and $1 a year from now with steady progress. Cheers!

I'm still buying, all about lowering my avg buy price now

Is this information current yet? I'm buying like hell.

(for the more naive ones: no, it's ironic. And yes, I'm collecting them on falling market price)

iCEBREAKER, WINDJC, papa_lazzarou, thanks for taking the time out to reply.

Some interesting thoughts and opinions from yourselves and a few others since i posted my question, 1Block has also made a statement regarding some of the recent posts on the BTC via the slack channel:

The speculation on the bitcointalk thread is inaccurate
The wild keccak algorithm doesn't make boolberry development harder
It's been pretty easy to do the updates that have been made already, most of which is copied from monero. The testing and troubleshooting has taken longer
There's research and fact finding necessary, and unforeseen issues like the seed nodes going down
I'll set up seed node redundancies in a few weeks
In the same manner that monero does
If other developers are interested in the effort, please have them contact me as I know where they would be best used
Most of it is around Web services and parallel infrastructure, not boolberry core.

Me personally i would like either you guys all to come and join the slack channel that was started by mbe24 and get these type of discussions brought up or else 1Block to come on here and respond to all that has been said.

Don't know if it is all the talk here or what but have you seen the spike on polo in the past hr r so?

Again thanks for response