Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 129. (Read 387493 times)

Easy there, killer. I never said Anonymint preferred BBR over Monero. I missed the position change on dev team size.

1) He said probably. I cannot prove the non-existance of something. Zoidberg can reply if there any specific concerns. 

2) He says lots of things. What do these have to do with anything I said.

3) Reread that link. 

My goodness, the trolls are thick tonight.

I've posted in other threads about the comparison between XMR and BBR's proof of work schemes.  The bottom line is that they're optimizing for fundamentally different things.  I have a hunch that in the long term, both will turn into DRAM bandwidth-limited currencies, but for very different reasons, but that's an attribute that places ASIC-accelerated approaches on a reasonably similar bar.  The GPUs will be faster than the CPUs.  The ASICs will be faster than the GPUs.  But the ratio will be less large than it is with Bitcoin.  In the short term, BBR will be relatively more GPU-friendly than XMR is, but I don't think that there's much difference for them with ASIC-based implementations.

The statement about the "seems to lack entropy" is as vague as AnonyMint's other attacks against the XMR proof of work for having weaknesses related to its use of AES.  Remember - he doesn't like either of them, if you're going to start dredging all this crap up.  I'm in the opposite boat - I suspect they're both fine for now, but I make that statement cautiously for both, with the understanding that they may need to be modified (in relatively small ways) at some point in the next few years.

There is one known "weakness" in the BBR proof-of-work that should be fixed at some point in the future, but it's similar in importance to the way AES is used in XMR:  Both might make a serious cryptographer nervous if the function was being used **as a hash function** that needed all of the strong properties of a hash function, but neither is overly-flawed as a *proof-of-work* function, barring future analysis.  The truth about them both is that they've both used well-studied cryptographic primitives (good) and changed the *inside* of them to achieve a goal of memory hardness.  It's always dangerous to poke around inside the algorithms, but proof-of-work leaves a lot more breathing room as far as we know -- this is still a fairly under-studied field.

All of this misquoting of the mythical man month is silly, and ignores a more important point:  1-2 developers can do great things.  So can 7.  So can a dozen -- that's Amazon's preferred team size, for example.  With all of these, the proof will be in the pudding, as measured by robustness and security, usability, efficiency, and important features.

Stop grasping at bull$#!#.  Go read Zoidberg's presentation about the pruning, as I'm about to do, since it seems to be the only bit of actually useful information added to this debate in the last day.  People have expressed skepticism about whether it can work, and others have said it's one of the two most important features that BBR has over the rest of CryptoNote -- now is the time to start figuring that out.

Holy fuck you're stupid (waaaah, waaaah, ad hominem). I hold some BBR, and all you're doing is a disservice to BBR.

AnonyMint has made his position on BBR clear:

He's found that BBR pruning "has a flaw" or "simply isn't what is claimed"

He's said that "Monero has a superior name, larger team, larger market cap, more investment, more funding"

He's confirmed that BBR's PoW "seems to lack entropy"

His conclusion is equally clear: "any initial enthusiam about the quality of the developer has waned for me".

Rethink your strategy, bro.

Hail Eris!  

While I couldn't tell you what transactions he conducted with Christian or other miners, Anotheranonlol was buying BBR in a dark alley -- or, at least, off-market, as the term is more properly used.  I sold him a sizable fraction of what I was mining on EC2, and while the exact #s are none of your business, they were reasonably substantial.  I sold another sizable fraction on the market through an auto-selling bot on Poloniex that sold 80% of what I got at market buy price, and kept 10-20% in reserve at high prices.   The same kind of off-market transactions happened with both XMR and BBR.

To put this in context, I spent over $20,000 CPU mining on AWS in June.  I'm a small fish in the game, but the bigger fish were paying a lot of attention to XMR.

From my count of the #s, I believe that I personally (well, as personal as having 400 c3.8xlarge instances gets) CPU mined more Boolberry than Christian could have during that month, and of that, I held on to about 11k.

I don't know who the BBR whales are at this point, but I suspect they're not too dissimilar from Rpietila's analysis of the XMR whales.  I believe by this point, the "advantaged miners" for both XMR and BBR have mostly sold their stashes for profit, and the coins are solidly in the hands of investors.  I could be wrong - I believe that for both XMR and BBR there are likely something like 40-50k coins still parked with advantaged miners - but they're advantaged miners who've decided to hold longer, which makes them indistinguishable from investors.

On this front, Darkota, you might consider stopping throwing stones until you examine slightly the amount of silica in your own residence.   People had optimized XMR CPU miners.  Christian had an optimized GPU miner for XMR as well, just so you can't quite as conveniently forget that.  Half the people in this thread know what the mining distribution of XMR looked like in the first two months, and know that it's probably no more or less biased than BBR, and have collectively decided they don't care.  As a reasonable comparison:  Neither XMR or BBR has a holder who owns as much of the eventual market supply as Satoshi Nakamoto does, for example.  Unless maybe it's rpietila - but he paid market rate for them.

And I'm pretty sure their conclusion is right:  Because it was only two months, and represents a *relatively* small fraction of the total coins that will be produced in year 1, much less the life of the coin.  Neither of these coins is a corrupt-developer P&D.  And at this point, the publicly available miners are all within a reasonable percent (let's call it 20%) of the best - but let's not turn this into another bitch-fest about Claymore's XMR GPU miner, because his 5% cut is also fairly irrelevant.

1)We agree on the bolded part.

2)Monero was released with an intentionally crippled hash. That is not a fair launch.

3)I am not a dev and never claimed to be. There are other devs.

1) I don't believe that in the least? Why? Because looking at the previous asks/bids on boolberry, not much has been traded. So it's either you're straight up lying you did with saying the guy wasnt making 5-7k bbr per day(he was), or you did it off the books somehow in a dark alley (sarcasm)

2) Strong buy support is obviously not a pump, especially since the price has remained stable, with no large upswings or signs of a pump. That's called Demand.

3) So btc-mike isnt a developer, that means Boolberry only has 1 developer, now you cant say otherwise, because you yourself made the statement lol

4) Only thing you're right on.

1) Ok, so we are all using assumptions of whether he dumped or held his instamined boolberries. My assumptions are based on just how, unlawful and untruthful a lot of seeming lee "honest" folk in the crypto scene are, I Highly doubt that he dumped anything/much.

2) There is obviously a clear winner, as Monero(formerly Bitmonero) was launched before boolberry

3) Anonymint was wrong with that statement, as I remember seeing another user correct him, along with the fact that accoriding to studies, 5 is the optimal team number, Monero has a team of around 7, which is way closer to the optimal number of 5, than boolberries team of 1. Source: http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/04/agile-optimal-team-size

1)Christian is the only person that knows the correct numbers. The only way to be sure is to examine the wallet he used while mining.

2)There is no clear winner in the first fair release argument.

Bitmonero was announced on 4/9. Bitmonero was launched 4/18. Bitmonero was taken over around 4/24 and renamed Monero.
Boolberry was announced on 4/21. Boolberry was launched on 5/17.

There was active development on Boolberry since the announce. No meaningfiul changes were made to the Bitmonero core until after the takeover.

3) According to Anonymint's post BBR has a better team size than Monero.

1) Because I was buying
2) XMR buy support ~650 BTC BBR buy support ~4.5 BTC was some numbers from earlier today on poloniex. If you are suggesting BBR is the one pumped I would call you crazy.  (To be clear I am not insinuating a pump automatically means a dump is in order) I do hold both XMR and BBR. (and without sounding like I'm bragging, I'm sure considerably more XMR than you, which is funny for how passionate you are about the competition considering you've admitting your holdings are meagre) XMR is artificially inflated, or should I say the rise is accelerated relative to BBR which is organically moving on it's own technological merits and not marketing antics by bitcointalk all-stars and a team of brown-nosers who insinuate it's the only thing worthy of your attention aside from btc, and that anything else is just a cheap clone. BBR has a market cap of less than 10x that of XMR, there's no tangible explanation as to why. Fundamentally it's the stronger coin.
3) btc-mike is not an XMR developer, neither is cz the only one. I do notice they have shared commits in the past. What is surprising about that?
4) bagholder only applies when you have net losses, something I don't currently have in BBR nor XMR. (realised and unrealised)

Im not pumping anything, I just like using font size and bold to emphasize points..I assume thats why they are there... I also hold less then 30 moneros....

1) Exactly how do you know he was/has sold any of his boolberry? Oh yea, cause he just "said so", just like so many other people "said things", just to please the crowd. I highly, highly, doubt that the guy with the PGPU was selling the boolberries he instamined, im sure he holds more than half/most of them. Also, I showed a quote from one of the boolberries devs(btc-mike), ackowledging that the guy with the PGPU was making 5-7k bbr per day, so you can stop lying. Here it is:



2) Basically, since I own not that much moneros, I can say that it hasnt even been pumped...It has an overwhemingly large supply of buy orders against the sell orders, but there hasnt been any 10x price increases so far(mintpal pump was just 1 pump, and boolberry was also pumped that day, so you can call boolberry itself an "orchestrated pump"). Basically, what you see, is people who understand what Monero brings to the table, and are happy to be apart of it. It's called being Proud....

3) I only know of 2 Boolberry developers, btc-mike and CryptoZoidberg. That's it. Incase you havent noticed, both boolberries and moneros team share each other code commits on github, so that statement you made makes no sense.

4) At least you admitted one thing(the easiest to admit to a bbr bagholder), that the name is shit.

1) At least one guy mining with GPU had an advantage over CPU miners in BBR, it's undeniable.
He used this advantage to make quick profit and dump on market (largely) redistributing the coins regularly for guaranteed profit and to recoup the very rea) operating expenses.
this advantage was reduced over time with diff/scratchpad increase as well as increased profitability of other ventures relative as bbr value went down, now gpu miner is in public domain and you can see it is not terribly more efficient. The numbers you give are intentionally misrepresentative as a biased XMR supporter.
It was by no means a consistent 5,000 - 7,000 per day from inception until today. Only Christian could come forward and give you the real numbers, So I won't bother with that one.
 Bear in mind XMR also had a private GPU miner at one time, as well as private CPU miners at ~225% advantage who took 1 minute or so early on to fix the intentional crippling left over from bytecoin.

2) See fairbrix/litecoin. I won't try to argue BBR has same stickinesss XMR currently has because it clearly doesn't. XMR is orchestrated pump and BBR is not. That is why the market cap of BBR is > 10x less that of XMR

3) Contrary to popular belief, BBR is not a one man show. But the developers crack on with code, not eccentricities and flowery talk. I postulate they have a deeper understanding of CN than the XMR dev team

4) agreed, it is shit.

lastly, please keep the font size normal. Big font size is usually reserved for bagholders desperately pumping a shitcoin that get their panties in a twist

Ok, so the point is:

Boolberry has been instamined/extremely unfairly mined by a guy with a PGPU, who was making 5,000-7,000 Boolberry per day.

Boolberry is not the first fairly launched/accepted Cryptonote coin, it has no network effects working with it

Boolberry lacks a decent size development team

Boolberry has a really crappy name(no offense)

Basically, anyone buying Boolberry is just throwing their money out the window.

Who said they did not release the first fair one which was later 'hijacked'?

About the litecoin vs Bitcoin argument all over again (implying 1- that ltc never offered anything over btc, which it did at some point and hence why myself and many others bothered mining and touching it from first days of launch, and 2) that bbr doesn't offer anything over xmr) If anything Bytecoin is Tenebrix, Monero can be Fairbrix and Boolberry is Litecoin. I guess you can switch things over and say Monero is litecoin since it seems to have 'stuck' over all CN coins, or make the arguments you can't pigeonhole today into yesterday- both fair comments

but essentially same argument you make to deride BBR is true in reverse..XMR doesn't bring anything to the table over BBR, in fact it seems to leave a few ingredients off some dishes- saying 'it's better that way, we can add them later'..(once we learn how to cook them properly), yet there is just a ton of confirmation bias from xmr supporter camp that seem to act like XMR is michelin star preparation and BBR is just a cheap motel breakfast clone attempt

sad thing is looks like XMR can steal any missing dishes from BBR table and people would ask why eat at BBR table when we have all dishes here? If BBR were to steal some dishes from XMR table people would still prefer to eat at celeb-frequented and endorsed XMR table. They've been told by people with green numbers next to their name it's the only thing worth investing in aside from BTC itself

maybe we might see a new wave of CN hipsters will start asking why the food at XMR table is so pricey in comparison, and these people start looking for less crowded tables where the food is priced more attractively and may not leave you quite so bloated and lethargic after snacking. interesting to see if xmr tries to weighwatchers hard-fork and clean up their messy body with a nice gui makeover whether people will come back to them or whether they will just steadfastly never leave xmrs side for younger, skinnier and sexier blonde boolberry . I think it will be the latter but hope it's the former for the sake of the underdog

Frankly, I hold both coins.. Just sick of constant xmr echo chamber and people using monero as synonym for cryptonote

Hello guys,

I heard you were talking about pruning ring signatures from CryptoNote coins, so let me introduce Boolberry's solution:




Zoidberg

Ah I didn't consider all nodes running constant flow all the time (because it is so inefficient). That indeed obfuscates fixed points without masternodes but...

A fully connected mesh network of all nodes in the mix-net means N squared explosion in bandwidth. The bandwidth is limited to the slowest node's bandwidth (how to coordinate that? coordination could be Sybil attacked? ... I expect my 'inimical' point to remain valid because you try to fight against entropy increase).

I see you trade the increased latency required to otherwise defeat timing attacks for N squared explosion in bandwidth.

There are more efficient methods than the above two options.

Agreed we are getting too technical for this thread.

You can build what is basically mesh network with fixed capacity connections upon which you run the mix network. Whenever you open a connection to another peer in the network, you keep open the connection and both sides keep sending packets at the agreed upon rate while tunneling their actual communication through this constant stream. Packets are routed through this network to the target peers chosen for the onion routing route for the given packet.

I see that this design is probably more than can be easily implemented on top of I2P if it was desirable at all.

It occurs to me that this discussion is probably off topic here.

Afaics, there can't be a layer outside the onion routing maintaining constant flow to outputs of the network unless you have masternodes in control of maintaining the constant flow, which would then be egregiously vulnerable to Sybil attack. How do you envision it working otherwise?

Thus constant flow is inimical to the obfuscation of fixed points through autonomous randomization (increasing entropy), which makes a Chaum mix-net work.

Tangentially: the beauty of one-time ring signatures if they are creationally autonomous thus entropy increasing. Entropy increasing designs are congruent with the universal trend of nature (because mutually observable space-time is irreversible). Unfortunately one-time ring signatures are also collectively bound for destruction, i.e. kills pruning.

My idea is that the cover traffic channels would be the outermost layer for communication between nodes participating in the mix network. You perform routing and onion routing through these channels.

Following the above, if an attacker controls all nodes to which you connect, the attacker can tell what part of the traffic is cover traffic.

If you find a way to switch around the order of layers, this can possibly be avoided. However, as you noted, doing cover traffic inside the onion routing network would be difficult.

I see this point.