At first - thank you for your interest to our poject.
Hello Zoidberg. I apologize I thought you were attempting to prune the blockchain of transaction records which are spent— which both I and at least fluffpony think is impossible.
Now I see the details of your solution, which is discarding the ring signature proofs bloat, but retaining all transaction history. This indeed will work fine.
However, this is not pruning the blockchain, rather is just a constant size reduction in the bloat, thus it still won't scale to Visa scale because even Bitcoin wouldn't scale to Visa scale without pruning transaction history (or implementing the mini blockchain which also discards transaction history more efficiently).
I agree with you - it is not pruning transactions, and we newer claimed that we do it (This is strange that Monero devs was not explained this to you since they said that they closely examined all Boolberry features.
)
But there was still possible to reduce a bigger part of transaction's body - and i did that, since it was best that i could do with CryptoNote blockchain bloat.
I will update my upthread summary of top anonymity coins to note your advantage. But note your advantage doesn't really solve the scaling problem of one-time ring signatures.
When I said my enthusiam waned, I didn't mean to imply that you are not a capable programmer, because obviously you are. I meant that you are picking features to work out which don't really achieve the necessary level of functionality to unequivocally pull out in front of the rest of the coins. But I don't fault you for this, because most everyone else can't figure it out either. It is just that you are up against apparently a significant team of devs with Monero. I am not saying you couldn't pull a radical innovation out of your hat— anything is possible.
Boolberry is not perfect, sure. Every coin have practical problems. But this is obviously that our project is technically stronger than any other CN coin, despite "significant team of devs with Monero". (nothing personal - i still like a few pretty nice persons from Monero )
About your PoW hash, I am concerned there isn't enough entropy on the blockchain headers to prevent some trivial preimaging. I haven't had time to think deeply about it though, so no one should quote my concern as any thing more than an intuitive guess.
P.S. I never wrote that the ideal team size is 1 or 2 for all scenarios. Rather I said that for raw innovation, the ideal is 1 or 2 and for refinement via open source, the core team size should be larger (with hopefully a Benevolent Dictator to keep innovation from being stifled by consensus gridlock or chaos) and the community of eyeballs should be unbounded.
We don't use the whole header's data since it obviously not all of it is pseudo-random. For adding to scratchpad i use only:
* prev block id
* coin-base transaction's onetime key
* coinbase transaction's outs keys (xored with prev_id)
* blocks merkle hash
So i took only that data that seems to be maximum close to random.
(take a look into get_block_scratchpad_addendum(const block& b, std::vector
& res) in src\currency_core\currency_format_utils.cpp: line 868)
upd:
PoW is changed because oroginal CN PoW is extremely slow, even with optimizations. Now, with that slow hash Bytecoin, Monero and others have to provide a link for downloading blockchain file instead of loading this from network cloud, tha's actually a real centralization.
In Boolberry we have 5-times faster synchronization and don't need to centralized blockchain file preloading.
Zoidberg