Topic: [BBR] Boolberry: Privacy and Security - Guaranteed Since 2014 - page 127. (Read 1210779 times)

Whats the current rate ?

Hi guys,

This is just a reminder that all cryptonote coins are on topic in the Monero stackexchange.

There are not many questions about BBR, so come over and ask away...

I started these, if someone is able to answer them, please do.

https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/2302/how-does-boolberrys-wild-keccak-work

https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/2303/boolberrys-transaction-identification-by-prefix

How are we supposed to fix those overwhelming errors having no clue what they could be? Downgrade to Boost 1.53, MSVC 2012 and try again. I guess cmake version doesn't matter.

From reddit

https://m.reddit.com/r/boolberry/comments/56mi7z/trying_to_build_boolberry_from_source_on_windows/

3
r/boolberry
Trying to build Boolberry from source on Windows
u/jaredm171321m
Hello all - for the record I am not a C++ expert so please bare with me. After much trouble I was able to install cmake 3.6.2, boost 1.62, and Visual Studio 14.0. Then I downloaded the Boolberry code from github and navigated to its directory. That is where I ran the following commands from a command prompt where I am attempting a build on a 64-bit machine:

mkdir build
cd build
cmake -DBOOST_ROOT=C:\boost\boost_1_62_0 -DBOOST_LIBRARYDIR=C:\boost\boost_1_62_0\lib64-msvc-14.0 -G "Visual Studio 14 2015 Win64" ..
msbuild.exe boolberry.sln /p:Configuration=Release
Okay so the first through third lines seem to run with no problems. However, the last build line produces an overwhelming 574 errors. Thus, I am unable to build the executables. As per the instructions in the Boolberry read me I was thinking I have my environment setup correctly since I am using "MSVC 2012 of later", "cmake 2.8.6 or later", and "Boost 1.53 (not 1.54) or later." Does anyone know how I can get this to work?

0–
Best
Write a comment

Development from multiple quarters would be certainly a good for the coin but taking CZ into confidence is needed as he has the complete understanding on the project...hopefully he will start accepting the code updates over a period of time once he see the quality code coming in....

https://cointelegraph.com/news/monero-loses-darknet-market-in-apparent-exit-scam

mbk's pool died again. No blocks found for 6+ hours. I'm done with it. Too much trouble. Switched one rig to solo mining and moved all other rigs to different algos.

That's right

There are already community members sending pull requests to my organization's repository. Zoidberg could just as easily be one of the community members reviewing code over there, we would even add him to the github organization! At the same time, we can also just send a big pull request later to his repository if we deem it necessary. Furthermore if he makes solo updates to his repository we can just rebase ours again with the latest updates. It is all a net benefit and thats how open source is supposed to work  

As a long term investor, I've gained a higher amount of confidence in the project based on CZ's last few posts. He said he's working on an update and if we gauge his prior contributions to his recent statements, we can expect top quality work in a short period of time. A substantial update from CZ could bring this project back to 200k-400k+ range or a 10x-20x from it's current position with relative ease. If your primary goal is to increase the value of this crypto asset, it would be in the best interest of all parties to work with CZ and conform to his request for a code review. At least that way there is unity in the project and you can earn his and the communities trust.

If your team is actively working to improve the codebase, then working alongside the best Cryptonote developer in the field will only add more value to this project. CZ seems motivated to contribute here and why mess a good thing up? IMO, you've already accomplished a lot by motivating CZ to work on the project again. Anything else is an added bonus

yeah back to the important problems, ocminer seems to have a lot of foresight here

With both you guys dick slapping eachother, it would be nice if mining software for this coin was brought up to snuff. It's not easy to solo mine compared to other coins and the miners have issues. Something something... 8 gigs of memory... something... no RPC support in wallet... something...

The blockchain works fine although less and less nodes are able to use it as the blockchain is stored in memory. all cryptonote coins have this flaw and Monero and Bytecoin are the only ones that have fixed it. The last two years would be fine, as you pointed out. The next would not.

You are associating a lot of unrelated things with presuppositions you already made about it being a pump with shills, which I also consider flawed presuppositions just like the one about the continued viability of boolberry's blockchain. This is the opposite of reserving judgement, it is entertaining to chat with you but my organizations only way to disprove most of the noise is to continue doing exactly what we are doing.

The only people that need to decide to run my code or not are the mining pool operators, until the network becomes more distributed. They dont seem to share the same views as you

We are having casual conversations while you are looking to our words as gospel to prove or disprove your faith based interest in the project. The trading symbol discussion isn't masquerading as a technological improvement. It is something we are going to do or not do, after letting the community know about it and gather input. Did you consider simply not conflating it with your other presuppositions?

What's broken?  The blockchain was working fine before you showed up.  Many of us have been mining Boolberry from the beginning and off and on over the last couple of years without any "Repairs" from you.  Please explain what was broken.

All that seems to have happened since you showed up was a coordinated pump.  You've added some checkpoints and made the developer bounty disabled by default.  All of those are very simple changes and does not prove that you have the ability tio make the changes to the code that you lead people to believe.  You have also made a comment about changing the trading ticker as if that would have anything to do with the technology, price, or adoption of this coin.  You were promptly followed by the typical shills asking "when yobit" "translation bounty" etc...  This is all suspect and leads one to think that this is nothing more than an elaborate attempt to pump the price so some can dump their coins.  My last post regarding BBR was to say that I'll hold off judgment before deciding on whether this is a pump or a legitimate effort to develop the coin.  I do not think that this is a legitimate effort to develop the coin and because of that I will support CZ 100% and will not take part in any hostile takeover attempt that you are currently pursuing.  

That's where I stand.  You are free do do whatever you please and myself and others are free to call CZ's repository the official Boolberry version.

with 18 Million coin supply, how much Boolberry price now?

I am mining on pooltobe, I see there are payments sent but I don't see all the payments in my wallet. I see the transaction hash listed but I don't know how to read it to find out where my coins are. I missed about 4bbr yesterday and so far today I'm suppose to have 4.6 (a 2.8 and a 1.8 pay) but nothing in my wallet. what can I do? anything? I like the pool, but if I miss coins then I will just have to switch to monero or eth. thanks for any help.
1Jj8HVcSkcCFTzpXKbeZYP9a7oXVppSRdV7CGcqPspfp3DJgejxoZTo4QBa9h5ZSwz3R17Z8ZjrBHfJ 3qe9Bkn4b4B1GYEG

Yes, let's dissect that statement

We never created third party BBR builds, people ask us every day for binaries to install, yet people can only build from source, and CZ even said build from source.
Since we:
A) don't have builds and
B) nobody knows who else he could have been talking about

Can you see how that could be an intentionally misleading statement solely to sway the confidence of less tech savvy investors?

Next, CZ was nowhere to be found, and one mining pool had 75% of the network, while suffering outtages, causing the network to fork occasionally. Given how blockchains work, you should realize that this means it was NOBODY'S coin. Anyone that wanted to introduce changes to the way the network functioned could have done it at any time. We came to repair the network and improve it.

CZ has appeared from nowhere with statements that are random non sequiturs that are largely reactionary to our existence. Our existence has been benign in the most pessimistic view, and positive for the network in neutral and optimistic views.

Our analysts considered the possibility that there would be pushback from the original dev - despite there being zero indication he was even alive - and we took pre-emptive measures to avoid doing things that would be seen as provocative given the fickle nature of consensus in blockchain networks. We were and still are open to collaborating with CZ

Blockchains are a decentralized networks, a distinct contrast from a corporation or government, so the mere existence of sycophants leaning to a fearless leader for guidance about "his coin" simply gives you the worst of both worlds.

Its the miners coin. Always.

If someone had altered MBK's mining pool to completely change everything about Boolberry, including block reward, issuance schedule, anything, it would have not mattered what CZ's retroactive opinion was.

You all should be able to make these objective conclusions too, independently without the guidance of a former developer

Other contributors of the project are working with me already. I went through the github commits and contacted several of the other contributors a month ago, and this has helped revive interest in the project and accelerated our code reviews. This really isn't the battle of ego that one influential person may be making it out to be. In our world, the age of egotistic blockchain savants are over. Boolberry is broken and we are repairing it with a level of professionalism more in line with the broader software industry. You'll have to wait for more code updates if thats what you want to see for your comfort level.

I'm keeping a watching brief.

As far as I'm concerned BBR is still CZ's coin until he declares otherwise.

CZ built this coin from the ground up and has extensive knowledge of the Cryptonote protocol. His credentials are not in question and has proved himself. His request that you prove your competence with the codebase and contribute to the BBR repository seems entirely reasonable.

CZ is also right to suggest people be wary of downloading third party BBR builds that are not endorsed by him.

Whilst I've got no reason to doubt your integrity or intentions. The fact is this project has been going for over 2 years. Primarily on the strength of CZ work and talent (along with contributions a couple of others). You've been here for around a month.

Earning CZ's trust/ goodwill would go a long way towards helping you earn your stripes and inspiring trust others.

You're right, I simply added "not" to the sentence that was already there

It was funny in my head

https://web.archive.org/web/20160613102200/https://github.com/cryptobender/lui

This link has SOME stuff anyone feel like digging deeper.

<< "By default, if you don't disable them explicitly, donations will not be enabled." << ENDL

Grammar Nazi demands a change:

<< "By default, if you don't enable them explicitly, donations will not be shall remain disabled." << ENDL