Topic: [BBR] Boolberry: Privacy and Security - Guaranteed Since 2014 - page 406. (Read 1210781 times)

Not that he can't fight his own battles, but you guys are trying to vilify one of the better known software miner developers for cryptocoins.    Nothing is stopping anyone from creating their own miner.  If you think that a programmer who spent their own hard earned time learning how to code, and create a miner OWES you the software they've made --- try to think of it differently.  Let's say I own an ice cream shop that makes ice cream cones the fastest and the best.  Do you expect me to give you your own ice cream shop?  If you do, that's called entitlement.  Christian just happened make a miner before anyone else, for himself.  Interestingly enough it seems to me he's here to reassure you that he's not going to use his miner to tank your coins value.  I almost guarantee anyone else who has made a miner, wouldn't even register with the forums to discuss it.  They'd just power-mine and dump.  He also has a long track record of transparency, and has put countless hours of work into other open source projects that I am certain some of you have taken advantage of.

The nature of cryptocurrency is transparency and competition.  So before you get all crazy butthurt and demand forks and stupid ideas like a closed source block chain because one person made significant developments, take a moment to think about what you say before you say it.

What a gem of a quote in your quote.

I've never regarded mining as a malicious activity. It's a service to the network, it generates coins that will then be available on the open market. Mining is also a competitive activity, and of course I am trying to be more efficient than others. I think you're having a problem with unequal distribution of mining profits, a feeling known as envy.

A hardfork is dangerous, kind of like switching drivers while on a curvy coastal highway. Mountcoin fell off a cliff trying to come up with a V2.0 wallet version that also attempted to change some coin parameters (I think they intended to lower orphan rates by reducing the average block time), but did so without the required technical expertise.

You know you're wrong. So am I. Dreams dead, goin2mars.

There is a difference between closed source and not released to public .. If he hadn't said anything about it noone would care or talk about this.
That you are an investor or miner doesn't matter , if you find it is not fair go trade something else .. there are enough coins to go around.
I just don't get the argument here , it is not a shift in a direction or another. Its a private miner he keep for himself because he did it himself .. Well big deal.
It would be something else if it went public, closed source and like taking a huge % of the stuff mined sent to him.
It is exactly the same as someone with a huge farm atm. Just a software one.

I'm not saying he shouldn't profit. I'm saying if the field is going to be changing for one side, then it must change for both. If the tools of adoption are now closed source, then the thing to be adopted will naturally evolve to be closed source. Telling me that 'this is the way things are and always have been' isn't going to cut it. Because two months ago, things were open source. Now they're not, that door has closed and that's okay; but, I won't be adopting it (one last edit here: unless both sides are open source or both sides are closed source). Simple as that. I will, and already have, taken my money elsewhere .. to something that I've already accepted. That is why I proposed a closed source hard fork as the only one option.

edit: you also seem to not understand where I'm coming from. I'm not a miner. I'm an investor. I make my money on the market.

Investors reading thinks like this will not help him profit, it will drive price down considerably

Sure but that isn't his fault .. its a non argument , there is always a bigger player. Don't mean you can't profit from the coin , just not as much as he does.

If you read anything I've written, you would see that I'm not blaming him. I'm blaming idiot adopters like myself who come here and think this is a good idea to expect software and not donate, even though i do. He has every right to profit - it's his property and intellect that gives him the edge.

That is the nature of the game tho , he built his own tools , you can't blame him for it. It would be the same as blaming the asic builders using their hardware before sending them out when it is not as profitable no more. Being the first onto something isn't outplaying others , it is using your skills to profit from them and it is how it should be.

You detract from the argument. The statement was "now at the mercy of private, closed software". This is not about hardware, or centralized mining. This is about the existence of nothing but centralized mining, because exactly zero people here can do what you do. Should you profit from that? Yes. Should people just start launching coins for you and only you to profit off of? No. This one seems to be launched for you, and many more will be launched for you until people learn that either they should start paying their developers from day one, or thrive on closed source software. There's no other options.

Toward the rest, I agree .. quality currencies should come with every single bell and whistle that can possibly be conceived. But you're not gonna tell me that if all of that existed in the first place, you wouldn't have tried to find a way to do what you do best and outplay everyone involved.

No thanks. I appreciate that but I can compile myself. But for some users could be a problem then if you don't provide a linux binary for them. And then why no new binary version for Mac? Should I compile one and send you dga's version ?
Btw I don't know which one has it first but QCN has even a simple GUI wallet for Mac.

"now"? It has always been that way. See links posted to earlier stories about ArtForz and Coblee...

Also note how 51% of hashing power on Bitcoin (!!!) was in the hands of one pool recently. ASICs have terribly centralized mining. Ouch.

Wanna know how to solve it? Quality cryptocurrencies should come with wallets for Linux, Mac, Windows and with optimized miners for AMD, nVidia, CPU (SSE2, AVX2). Period. It won't help against ASICs in the long term but at least it creates a level playing (mining) field right from the start.

Christian

I'm not saying that what you've offered is not enough. I'm saying that you are making a very bold, and powerful statement that will come to define this scene, even if you don't realize it right now. Yours isn't the first, but it is the first that threatens the continued peaceful existence of cryptocurrencies. Open source coins are now at the mercy of private, closed software. It's not your fault, you just happened to be the guy that made the statement that's been long in coming.

The only way to keep this movement going is to evolve. The closed-sourcing of third party software that these 'alt' currencies must absolutely survive on in this year and the coming years must be met with an equally bold and powerful statement. You're not wrong to be doing what you're doing. If, the tendency to donate to and recognize powerful developers were still a naturally occurring thing then this very well may have turned out different. That is not the case, and nobody's to blame -- it's a natural evolution. No amount of open-source coding will ensure that developers get paid, save for a premine. Sadly, this does not cover payment to third party developers such as yourself .. who should be paid and recognized for their work, but not at the cost of the continued existence of the currency.

What I'm saying is that by taking this route, there will come a day where people will have no option but to trust a closed source cryptocurrency .. because the tools of infinite money are no longer available to them.

Linux compiles normally.

Boolberry was the first CryptoNote coin to even support Mac.

The only person asking for compiling help recently was using Ubuntu 12.04. I provided him with instructions.

Do you need help?

They still even have a proper binary for Mac and Linux after 1 month launch, Christian. Why do you bother?
It seems like Prof. Andersen having much interests in this coin too, but he's too busy for other things. Sorry but I just see a lot of flaws in this coin. Amazing that it got pump so hard.

Closed source is not an option. It would kill the coin.

Any fork would only delay Christian. He would adjust his miner and be mining again quickly. What then? Another fork?

Christian has already offered the solution. Develop a stratum pool and cpu miner. He will then rebuild his GPU miner to work on the stratum pool and make it open source.

We have bounty setup to put towards the stratum pool and cpu miner development. When we receive enough donations, we will attract some talented pool developers (zone117x, LucasJones, etc).

From a legal standpoint, the MIT license under which ByteCoin was originally published is pretty permissive.

I would not recommend it. No one would trust a closed source cryptocurrency.

I offered to publish an (open source) nVidia GPU miner provided some stratum support is available. What else do you want?

I agree. Has anyone considered if they would be willing to accept a closed-source fork? I think dev has the capability to provide the software necessary to continue.

When people have the technical capabilities to hold the coin hostage, or at least scare people into thinking they do .. simply changing the PoW might not be enough. Keeping it closed-source for a period of time would. But that would hinge on everyone using this now to accept that. Let's say that the PoW is changed .. what are the chances that christian would just do this all over again .. and again there's no way to convince him to distribute software or open source it?

What do people think?

More exposure in China. Chinese speakers make up a large market share, along with Russian speakers.