By cutting out dust from block rewards. Monero can have this as well. They chose to spend their time on building a proper database instead. I think I saw CZ get all giddy when he tried to make the point that a hard fork would likely be required to do exactly what he did. TBH, I've heard claims of 30-70% reduction with just a database being a possibility .. so why this is being repeated and hailed as a pinnacle achievement (trimming dust) I don't really care to know. Nobody knows the exact percentage:
"By cutting out dust from block rewards, Monero can have this as well" - No, It can't. I suggest you read again -
http://boolberry.org/files/Boolberry_Reduces_Blockchain_Bloat.pdf That reduction is unrelated to cutting dust.
You can compress a file into an archive. You haven't made the file smaller, you've just compressed it. Putting blockchain into a database hasn't trimmed the actual dataset. It's just put it into a database, BBR would actually reduce the size of the dataset. Spending time on database is a commendable piece of work and a needed contribution to cryptonote, yet If I'm not wrong it's something which can, and would be expected be adopted by others. So you can have a 'pruned' dataset IN an embedded DB.
..so I'm gonna ask you .. could it be that we're really just dealing with a guy that wanted to take a hacked shortcut by ruining your anonymity set and not deal with putting the work into creating a real database in the first place? What you should be asking is why he didn't put it in a real database!
Care to elaborate,
exactly how he ruined your anonymity set? factoring in the mandatory mixin features added. I don't disagree with some of gmaxwells statements though. Why do you keep bringing up the database.. after XMR team commandeered Bitmonero, rebranded and began their (very good) concerted marketing efforts, was there a database? NO. so same question to you- why do you want to trust those guys who never put the time into putting in a real database in the first place? Why didn't they do a proper relaunch and fix the problems? instead of just hijacking, changing the name initially and calling it a day. Because they weren't in a rush right?
Anybody could of cloned bitmonero and rebranded it as moneronxt or some moronic shit without making any changes at that time, just promised ones at a future date... No shit they would be first to launch then. No shit BBR launch was a little later because it actually implemented it's own novel ideas. Brand new PoW for instance. A whitepaper of which was recently released yet torn to shreds by die hard monero supporters nitpicking at minor (mis)interpretations of sentences, the dev doesn't even have english as a native language.
We come again to the predictable answer 'they are working on it' ... 'doing it properly' (stab at other coins implying they aren't) - XMR started by copy pasting BMR without making any changes to launch earlier but
now the team is working on it and that's what counts. It'll come soon...please.. So maybe BBR dev is also 'working on it gradually' like XMR works on their features gradually. As you know.. you cannot rush these things..
Ultimately, the argument you use to deride BBR is the same one you use to support XMR. If XMR is amazing because it's fixing problems not today but X date into the future, why can't BBR or any other coin be be that way?
Ten years, tony will have to pay an address licensing fee. His social security number will be replaced by his blockchain alias and it will be just wonderful. Not really .. these aliases are kinda pointless. Any benefit provided by protocol enforced aliases can just as easily be given by a third party that would use the alias in the first place. Also .. what if someone nabbed your view key or got access to your wallet? Imagine having to pay another aliasing fee? Could be lots of money. Why go through the hassle?
The whole point of this being a trustless, transparent feature baked in is so you don't need a (usually centralised) third party service. It's a frictionless process to send money to an alias with BBR. No need to remember a long string of characters, no need to trust any other service. With XMR to send money to your friend alice, you have to ask her for her address, and then paste something like 226f0f1682c3f5afda441789f4c9eee0c124586c4fd729c3103f63f4675f225b to send her funds. You have to save that into a notepad file or address book to keep track of it. With bbr, you could just type @alice and hit send. No arguing that that isn't a nicer experience.
what if someone nabbed your view key < what does that even mean?
or got access to your wallet? < Are you serious? Imagine if someone got hold of your monero or btc wallet. shock horror! you
might have a risk of losing some funds..
Be serious.
"BBR has completely open source GPU miners, that don't hold you to ransom by stealing hashpower or forcing a donation to the dev like with XMR. "
..which were affordable because nobody fucking wants the coin.
what was affordable because nobody wants the coin -- The mandatory donation to the author of moneros closed source GPU miners? I can't see how you'd even try to argue that closed source miners with pitfalls twisting your arm behind your back if you don't donate (you earn more donating than the loss of hashrate in not) are better than open source BBR miners for the ecosystem.
"BBR has more sensible block times."
Oh look! Another time traveler who knows for sure that blocks should yield exactly the amount of value that BBR produces! How convenient!
You haven't actually argued against the point there. the vision was supposed to be "close to BTC original curve" < Does it look close to BTC curve to you? half of all supply mined within a year.. seriously? I'm fine with it, because the more for me and less for others the better, as is everyone elses mentality lucky enough to be here early on, but it means potential pool for participants is much smaller. If BTC was 50% mined in 2009-2010, when it was more mature than XMR, (although the concept wasn't) I'm sure it wouldn't have taken off in the same way.
But saying that I can't pretend there hasn't been worse around, the fact NXT is near the top of the crypto market caps is testament to that. Also have to concede if the free market believes. they'll buy regardless of the distribution. Still can't lie and say it doesn't seem shortsighted, perhaps even lazy and greedy to not have tweaked it.
TFT was the one who added the 'feature' (bug) to change it from 120s to 60s which caused it's own set of problems. It since hasn't been corrected. It's one of the reasons you saw so many orphans- verification is expensive, that wasn't optimized, neither was the daemon, etc all CN coins had problems but XMR had issues even more so with introduction of 60s block. When XMR was hijacked from TFT, the new devs made no effort to fix his questionable changes, Those params were left the way they were, despite there being arguments against them they were left to stay . Why even choose it? why keep it.
They couldn't be changed at this point, no way. It would harm XMR too much.. So it HAS to be swept under the rug and masqueraded as an intentional design choice to save face.