Topic: [BBR] Boolberry: Privacy and Security - Guaranteed Since 2014 - page 334. (Read 1210752 times)

The could be only perception, but I'm not sure. It seems a lot of non-advantaged people reported being able to successfully mine XMR and stuck with it, while a lot of BBR miners tended to complain and give up. I have no objective information about the magnitude of these, I'm just going by what I saw on the threads, IRC, etc.

Maybe that is just because the XMR price was going up, lifting all the boats so to speak, I really don't know the history of the price curves of the coins though. I remember BBR have a run up too. If so that would have affected both coins equally.

Perhaps having pools earlier helped XMR. (Is this even true? I'm not sure.) Small miners were able to get something even if they couldn't quite compete on equal footing. Or maybe the faster XMR curve meant there were more coins to go around (that's not entirely rational of course, but people aren't either).

I do think that early coin adoption is rather critical and fragile, and that optimizing miners who come along and "rape" a coin (whether or not associated with the developer) can do a lot of damage. I don't think they owe the coin anything, so there is nothing immoral about this, but people doing it have to decide if they want to help the coin or maximize mining profits. That's an individual decision. Coin developers who don't want to be in this position need to ensure that easy/early optimziations aren't possible. Both BBR and XMR failed on this (as do almost every coin that comes up with some new PoW although most of them are probably actual developer instamine-type scams).

I hope this doesn't come off as bashing becuase that is not my intent at all, I'm just trying to interpret what I saw happening in the past.

This is not factually correct - please see my comments on the rpietila thread.

The two coins are *surprisingly* similar in the %age of coins mined during the time someone had an advantaged miner.  If anything, XMR is actually just slightly worse, because it has a faster emission curve and therefore a few more coins were mined during the time.  (Remember that XMR's curve is twice as fast as BBR's.)

This is a perception problem used by people to bash on BBR, not a reality problem.

Need to implement the same incremental pool's scratchpad update as it used by minerd, via addendums. Or, as other workaround - export scratchpad via file on disk, but it still workaround. Normally need to implement addendums reading.

Any idea how to fix this in the pool source?
or is there a workaround for my own solo-mining-test pool?

We had two discussion threads in the past about name voting, and nothing better than Boolberry came out.
I don´t get why ppl like names like "Night", "Dark", "Shadow", "Note", "Liberty". It´s all sounds pubertal or nerdish to me.

You ever ask a girl if she like the name Boolberry? She first will associate it with Burberry, and this is good i think. 
In this moment when Boolberry will adopt to a large audience, Boolberry will benefit from his name.



 

I didn't think of that, but I expect it would. At the least, it'd provide some decent options I expect.

Tech is of course important, but I hope folks don't dismiss branding. It's what gets people's attention from the start. Some of the arguments, like it's a fun, semi-childish name, or amex, visa, etc. don't sound like they are related to money, are valid opinions. But a fun, semi-childish name probably isn't working that great for boolberry currently.

When I see the name, I think of this --http://www.comicrelated.com/graphics/boo-berry.jpg

Not something that would work well as a crypto, or something the general public would even consider using as a currency.

Anyone know what's up with BBRFarm.......it looks like found blocks aren't maturing?

on an other note whats wrong with Boolberry.........It's unique and the tech is more important than the name

edit:
 What I mean is you can paint a turd gold, polish it call it anything you want......it's still a turd

 If Boolberry keeps the tech moving forward it will succeed....regardless of name

Correction: It was two pizzas, so 5000 per pizza at about $12.50 per pizza.  

The date was May 22, 2010.

The genesis block was January 3, 2009.

That is 17 months.

The price subsequently increased rapidly in 2010, as recounted at the history page (linked below).

The point being after 17 months it was still 10000 BTC = $25 i.e. 1 BTC = $0.0025 (and was 18% mined). That is a very long time by today's standards. Almost (but not quite) literally a premine in the sense that it was 18% mined before it was used for anything.

Sources:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1195
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/History#2010

I really think the coin would benefit from a name change. I guess some folks here like it, and I've only followed the coin on occasion, but that name... it's hard to take it seriously.

And yes, it may be memorable, but not in a good way. Sort of like if a product didn't use such a ridiculous sounding name, it would have been a big hit. Boolberry sounds like a breakfast cereal to me... Boolberry goes better with Count Chocula, not crypto.

Just my opinion, and I'm sure many here feel differently. But I'd hope at some point rebranding is seriously considered -- just come up with something similar, just not as ridiculous. BooleanNote ... something like that would be better even.

price sux and devs should.. pump it not just change codes

Good news!

Finally we prepared document that explains what is Blockchain-based Proof-of-Work hash function (Wild Keccak) and what ideas lay under this implementation.

http://boolberry.com/files/Block_Chain_Based_Proof_of_Work.pdf



Hope this help's with understanding what have done with proof of work.

Want to say thanks for help with that document to Mike, dga, tifozi, otila.

If you found some errors there, or want to add/correct/remove something - fill free to comment this google document:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pFmEs8pKj1gB1yXlIkrr6Mu1yqrTYQJ63N1e-DJ0RxA/edit

or write me pm.
or just write here if you want dicussion.


Zoidberg

You guys are so long in Bitcoin. You are lucky guys!

I dont know why you guys talking about fair or unfair
I think nothing is fair to all of the 7 billion people on the world
Whatever you do, do not let all people feel fair,Won't make everyone happy
So,let us go on trust the boolberry,let them get out

Bitcoin was released in 2009. I got onboard in mid-2010 and the price at that time was more like 100 BTC per pizza (Here, 1 pizza is around 5 euros).

Hard to to disagree with that.

For what it is, if Bitcoin's curve were faster, it would probably be worse. That is, Bitcoin being the first and not understood or recognized as valuable at all for quite a while. It took almost 2 years just to get to the 10,000 BTC = 1 pizza stage. By that time it was already about 20% mined which definitely seems kind of silly.

Today, new coins obviously get at least some adoption a lot faster than Bitcoin did. I don't know if this means that faster-than-Bitcoin curves are better for new coins. Maybe they should all be a lot slower. XCN might be on to something with their 10-year half life. Or maybe something like Bitcoin's curve is just right for a coin like XMR or BBR. Or maybe Bitcoins curve is right for Bitcoin and new coins should be faster.

Or maybe the idea of any fixed curve set in stone from the start is really not the best way to go at all. (But then if not, what should replace it?)

There is a lot we don't know about how these coins work, or even if they can work at all long term.

Yeah, perfect emission curve should track adoption, but this seems to be impossible in real world.
After all, even if bitcoin emission curve is not perfectly "fair", and not exactly track adoption, it is still more fair than faster emission models, isn't it?

Anyway, i don't want to flame - i've got your opinion, and it's reasonable,  i'm personally stay with my point of view on this.

Agree about XCN, interesting project.

Closer perhaps but it is still quite easy to argue that it is "unfair" if this is your definition of unfair. Bitcoin is about 75% mined and most people on the planet have no idea it even exists. Even most people in developed countries with good access to information and access to computers have barely heard of it if at all.

Now I don't happen to think that is "unfair" as I said earlier, but if your definition of fairness includes wide access to large amounts of newly issued coins to late adopters the Bitcoin's curve is also grossly unfair.

The thing is, you can't really know this in advance. When Bitcoin was created, nobody had any idea if it would ever be remotely successful or how long it would take. Likewise for newer cryptocurrencies. So if you are using the model of a fixed curve defined in advance and trying to make this curve track adoption (even in some loose sense )you almost can't help but miss the mark.


I don't know. There are all sorts of considerations, and I'm sure you have considered many of them.

From a strategic point of view I might try something that is deliberately outside of the range already crowded with existing coins. I give the XCN guys credit for thinking a bit outside the box and trying that.

(Technically it doesn't limit holders, just potential first holders, but I know what you are saying.)

We don't know how people will find out about Monero a year from now. I suspect either Monero will have been viewed as a failure by then, or the ways people find out about it will be significantly broader than those you listed (which approximately describes the situation today, not a year from now). Even then, that that is still only 50%, leaving 50% unissued.


I don't think these would be very effective launches, nor a good idea, but if clearly described up front, I can't really call it unfair.

Who is being mislead here? If you don't think issuing all the supply in the first month or first minute, then don't participate. But have you been treated unfairly? I don't think so.

Disagree somehwat, there will be nuances over the way people intepret words like 'fair', but I think it can certainly apply to emission curve. Seems to me that the steeper the curve the smaller the pool of potential participants. Especially when this is a project in very much alpha status. I can't imagine bitcoin would of enjoyed quite the same success it had, if the vast majority of the rewards were already doled out from 2009-2011.

~50% of all XMR that will ever be in existence will be minted near 1 year from now which limits large pool of xmr holders to confines of the specific monero thread(s), in a subsection of this forum, subreddits and a few guys who heard about it trollbox of obscure exchanges.   Imagine if that same emission curve was even steeper, and instead 50% of the supply will be released in 1 month.. how about 1 week, or 1 hour..let's be even more retarded and say 1 minute. Half of all monero ever released in 1 minute; BUT the rules were clearly defined.. the [ann] thread was created explaining everything prior to the launch. (even though it may have done a half-assed  attempt at a launch before subsequently picked up and saved/taken over/relaunched/rebranded months later..which incidentally is a great cover for a little headstart)

Would you consider that fair? If you are fixed in this opinion curves themselves can't be fair or unfair- they don't have emotion or greed since they are some mathematical property, an algorithmic function who's nature is clearly defined--

 then would you consider the designer/implementer (and the guys who said- let's roll with it) unfair?-
being that they were the ones in a good position to profit proportionally corresponding to how 'unfair' as it was?

But.. in the same breath I agree you can't really eliminate the chance of early adopters getting rich by stretching things out. It's the nature of these things.  And ultimately the market will decide the fate. If market believes it's got a value they will buy. regardless of whether it was mined in an hour,a  day, a century or whatever