Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 224. (Read 387493 times)

Simple. The code came that way from bytecoin, from which MRO was forked (or alternately relaunched), and was supposedly going for two years. So somehow that little gem was "missed" by them for two years.  When the Monero team discovered the issue, we released it, and then most of the other cryptonote coins copied it, as I said.

Were it not for the Monero team fixing it, would it have been allowed to continue for another two years?

EDIT: And no, we did not carefully review 100K lines of code before the fork/relaunch. If we did you would still be waiting for the coin.  That work is still under way. For that matter the other CryptoNote coins are doing the same thing. We all push out fixes and improvements as we find them, often adopted by all.

Let's not forget the debacle surrounding monero's early days, which you call 'optimized' mining code

https://github.com/NoodleDoodleNoodleDoodleNoodleDoodleNoo/bitmonero/commit/3cc45e9324a402aee91e2f46861b2ca393d711aa

Which came out in may.wow, that was a shocker, how did that escape peer review by collective monero dev team?  that was a huge red flag in my eyes & hardly a small thing to let slip through the net.  Now that was much more worthy of the label 'instamine'

All coins are taking bits from each other. example

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commit/feac5a7b2ddce8f4612ecc459b176518061495b3

credit to boolberry.

The 2x figure refers to efficiency & comes from here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7362060

Unless either of us actually has wild-keccak GPU miner, I don't think we can say what the exact number is. The situation was the same with cryptonight.

Not knowable. The algorithm was discussed for a little while, and there was a testnet, development could have started before launch, and perhaps only a few tweaks were required at launch, if that. This is all speculation of course, but you can't say for sure how quickly a GPU miner was ready. Even to this day there are only private GPU miners. 

Even the CPU miner was poorly written and poorly scrutinized (the whole design was rushed) so the public code was very unoptimized and still is not well optimized to this day. You could say the same about CryptoNight except that within a few weeks of launch, the Monero team was releasing optimized mining code (which got copied to the other CN coins) and now even the very best coders are struggling to make big gains.


You are way off. If you understood how GPUs work you would realize this.

I'm not really too sure it could be construed as 'insanely large' advantage without it sounding like an exagerration.
especially considering such an early stage of distribution. That would be reserved for Bytecoin.

Of course, GPU miner was not ready on day 1. Brand new algo would take some R&D time. So far, we have an account of a single entity at a ~2x advantage (not exact figure: could be less, could be more). So essentially he has 2 CPU solo for every 1 CPU of joe public solo . And now the pools are gaining interest levelling the playing field.

It's known there are botnet mining XMR. I'd presume the same is true for BBR, if not now in future.
these cases are more than a ~2x advantage.
 
It's not known how many BBR, (if any) said user has sold on market to recoup costs and make instant profit.

an 'instamine' that's dumped before it actually realised any significant value is not really something I'd be concerned with. Coins were more 'instamined' heavily with Amazon instances. I put the term in quoutes because have seen real instamines and cannot compare whatsoever.

I'm not arguing about which coin is better. I hold both and see both as great investments. Aware that most reading this thread hold XMR primarily, so stand to profit if it becomes the one and only. I just think the market cap of BBR relative to XMR is surprising.


Is there a tangible reason for such a disparity?

It seems at the peak price today, BBR will need BTC20-30 to buy all mined coins daily, whereas XMR  will require around BTC110-125

That makes it an even bigger problem, because its an insanely large advantage for a few very early adopters that won't be possible later (i.e. instamine).

I'm not sure about this whole, "it's all sand" argument about ASICs. NRE matters. You have to get a big enough advantage from the design over its useful lifetime for the chip to ever get designed and manufactured. A small edge over more general purpose hardware that are manufactured in greater quantity with much larger R&D budgets won't cut it.

Correct.

so the boolberry scratchpad is now in RAM, small at this time yet increasing rapidly in size. Your proposal for a (presumably high performance) wild keccak ASIC would be some sort of SOC with external flash.. ?

Same bytecoin original code base.  I am not now sufficiently informed to give accurate details on the specific improvements.  I merely provide digest information which I deem sufficiently reliable to usefully report.  The reputed changes affecting privacy are small tweaks to the cryptonote protocol, making it easier to use the privacy features correctly.

What exactly is BBR using?

Unless there is a peculiar flaw in the implementation, which is not very likely, the privacy features of BBR are as good or a little bit better than XMR.  I would expect XMR to incorporate the enhancements of BBR where appropriate.

How does it measure up to ring signatures that is used in Monero to give pretty good anonymity of the sending and receiving parties?

This is the #1 selling point of Monero.

SOC with flash blockchain on-chip.  You made it more expensive, it takes more silicon, but it still amortizes to the cost of sand, at scale.

Elaborate please.

The massive pseudo-random scratchpad concept is not going to prevent ASIC acceleration.  Being a small niche coin might.  As long as BBR is the only wild keccak, and doesn't rise too high on the exchanges, it will be safer that way.  And yes, I agree that hard-forking to preserve the interests of existing miners against incoming ASIC miners is very viable, if it is done decisively.  I don't see this as a meaningful differentiator.  That's not a criticism of BBR.  It just means I don't think it weighs significantly in favor of BBR on a competitive basis.

I am quite certain that there are efforts to implement cryptonight on ASIC, given the recent outperformance of CN coins.  Planning for a hardfork to deal with that should be ongoing for all the CN coins.  "Be Prepared"

BTC value could survive mining centralization.  CN coin value cannot.



  

@Aminorex

Actually, it seems Hash-on-blockchain approach more forward thinking than vanilla cryptonight proof-of-work.
For now ASIC is problem for neither.  When it becomes economically viable, the research and development would begin.

example:

The GPU is a small problem for BoolBerry. Scratchpad increase will reduce the gap.  Hardfork is possible.
mining with MIC-like architecture on Monero is also more profitable than CPU but not the case with BoolBerry

Now there's something about which I am entirely and categorically convinced:  Privacy-enhanced crypto will be a dominant force for decades to come. 

That's fair over some time-frame, but over the full year?  I think 6 months of XMR might recapitulate 18 months of BTC history, easily.

It really is a bidirectional implication, and causal forces can invert the feedback loop equally well ambidextrously, which makes the argument entirely symmetric.  Which way the feedback loop is actually oriented in practice is, of course, the crucial fact on the ground.  If you say that the feedback loop will be negative at the point where price is no longer sustainable, I respect that, but I would like an explanation why, if possible.

The best explanation "why" that I can provide for myself is that there is a boundary condition imposed by the limits of demand side liquidity imposed by current channels.  Given that plx alone turns over 500 BTC on a good day, I don't think that current channels prevent a 0.02 price today, and I think they can support higher volumes handily.  (Of course qcn,fcn,bbr,bcn demand all dilute the xmr demand, so that places additional load on the liquidity channels.)

The only other limit on demand is crowd psychology, and I can't find a rationale for the 0.02 limit in that alone.  If you can do that with confidence, even to an order of magnitude, hat tip to you.  I can occasionally, but if there is another feedback loop confounding the growth, and I am not aware of it, then I will consistently underestimate the scope of a mania.

Of course a manic spike is the very definition of unsustainable.

I hope XMR never sees a manic spike.  But I know in my head that it is a vain hope.

Also the "privacy" coins are quite a new thing. They need totally new services built around them, and need a new infrastructure. It will be interesting to see where they go, and if they can gain traction.

Coin name can be changed. Maybe just go with "BBR" as name.
Dev name/nick is irrelevant. Coin can only survive if (sooner or later) lead dev is replaced by a vivid team. Only a coin lead by dev team can survive.

Monero devs have funny nicknames too (fluffypony, tacotime, ...). But they also have two devs with normal names: othe and David Laporte.