Topic: [XMR] vs [BBR] - Fight!! - CryptoNote War - page 2. (Read 6438 times)

Ah but May 7th there *was* no core team. In fact, just a few posts up from that -


Things have progressed, and a core team formed thereafter. NoodleDoodle was and has always been part of the core team *from its inception*. Clearly one of the reasons for this is his work he did on the PoW implementation, as well as his many (invisible to the outside world) contributions thereafter.


You're conflating - if you lose your private key to your Monero wallet, you can still change the address if you use OpenAlias. So you'd tell people to send funds to donate.monero.cc or whatever, and if you lost control of your wallet you'd merely update your address on that domain.


Congratulations for re-discovering Zooko's Triangle:)

OpenAlias is pretty much 1:1 email addresses, but with a layer that makes it secure. Users may not be required to memorise my email address, but I can definitely have a memorable email address if I choose to. The infrastructure for that is ancient and mature. With a new, closed aliasing system you will have a scenario where memorising it becomes impossible because the bulk of the easy combinations are taken.


I don't know why you'd suddenly decide to show some obviously faked output, but that's not what happens at all. If you use unprintable characters in your browser what happens? Same thing happens in Monero. Here, I cut-and-paste your two "examples" -


[wallet 49VNLa]: transfer 0 donate.monero.cc 10
For URL: donate.monero.cc,DNSSEC validation FAILED!
 Monero Address = 46BeWrHpwXmHDpDEUmZBWZfoQpdc6HaERCNmx1pEYL2rAcuwufPN9rXHHtyUA4QVy66qeFQkn6sfK8a HYjA3jk3o1Bv16em
Is this OK? (Y/n) n
Error: User terminated transfer request, disagreed with dns result from url: donate.monero.cc
[wallet 49VNLa]: transfer 0 donate.monero.cc 10
Error: wrong address: donate.monero.cc


If you can create a fake FQDN with unprintable characters you can do more harm to actual institutions than Monero.


You may have watched the hangout, but I don't think you actually took the 7 minutes required to read and understand the information on the website. Here are some salient points:

"With Namecoin, DIANNA, P2P-DNS, and other systems bringing decentralised DNS to the fore, the OpenAlias standard has been designed to be simple enough to drop in and work."

"In order to ensure that lookups do not betray the user's privacy it is best to implement DNSCrypt from OpenDNS, and force resolution via a DNSCrypt-compatible resolver. Dependent on your use-case, you may choose to bake DNSCrypt into your software, or bundle dnscrypt-proxy along with your application."

"There are only a handful of DNSCrypt compatible resolvers worldwide, and fewer still that additionally support DNSSEC validation, support Namecoin resolution, and don't log DNS requests. Additional DNS resolvers that meet these criteria will be launched and operated by OpenAlias and by contributors in the coming months. In order to make your life easier, you can get a list of available resolvers that have DNSCrypt operational on port 443 by fetching the A records from any of the following domains:

resolvers.openalias.org
resolvers.openalias.ch
resolvers.openalias.se
resolvers.openalias.li
"

So to speak to your specific points, OpenAlias solves them all:

Malicious resolvers - the standard recommends using resolvers linked by the resolvers.openalias seeds, or hey, run your own resolver.

spoofing/poisoning attacks - not possible with DNSSEC, I challenge you to prove otherwise

Most resolvers aren't using DNSCrypt - well isn't it great that there are tons of volunteers that run DNS resolvers that already do, and we'll be throwing down some m

setting up alias requires registering/managing a domain and keeping it renewed - I think GoDaddy has demonstrated that this is a consumer-grade service in 2014. In fact, for $36/year you can get GoDaddy's Premium DNS, and they provide managed DNSSEC on up to 5 domains! Additionally, the nature of the standard means that anyone can drop a domain down and provide alias services (for free or pay). The only real challenge is this space is preventing such a service provider from accumulating thousands of addresses on their service and then overnight changing all the addresses to ones that they control. This is trivially solved by having multiple signers on the records, thus invalidating it if it is changed and signed with only one of the two signatories.

so it's not decentralised or optimal from a privacy standpoint arguably - which is why we only link resolvers (and will only provider resolvers) that also have Namecoin support. There's no reason for your OpenAlias alias to live centralised, when it can happily exist on Namecoin's decentralised network (AND your query can use DNSCrypt and Namecoin records can by secured by DNSSEC, see NamecoinToBind for backhaul implementation details).

In other words, OpenAlias covers multiple use-cases, from the most entry level of users that just wants an X.paymemoneyz.com alias, to the more technical user happy to pay GoDaddy $36/year and have vanity aliases all over the place, to the geek that runs his own DNSSEC-ready infrastructure, to the decentralisation-obsessed user who puts his alias on Namecoin. It disconnects the cryptocurrency from the aliasing system, and let's the existing, decades-old infrastructure handle all the nonsense around it.

If DNSCrypt is forced it's even worse. You've limited pool of participants to a much smaller number

And the thing is you can't pay for your windows license using a cryptonote currency - that's just a pipe dream in a world where cryptonote has a large scale functioning economy.  (how would you propose you receive the code back btw?)

Pool operators can easily monetize alias generation service. Aliases could be traded OTC or via a third party service. This is the same situation we had and still have with domains where anyone is free to grab, if the technology takes off- (In which case both XMR and BBR holders will have big smiles on their face) squatters may stand a chance at turning a profit, just like the dotcom saga.

Thank you for acknowledging the bolded part above.

Meanwhile, can you please point out what true BBR supporters have been turned off by sig or the discussion of a rebrand? First of all, I am not forcing a rebrand on anyone.  So that's just more FUD. Second, fluffypony came onto the BBR main thread and made that statement in my sig. You may want to take it up with him as to why he was so candid in that moment.

You have a lot more problems, if your standard resolver is malicious.
Also IIRC DNSCrypt is enforced as part of the protocol, which limits the number of DNS servers you can use, but the security benefits of this are bigger then the disadvantages

The disadvantages of the BBR alias implementation are obvious:
First of all you have to solo mine (or have supportive and generous pool operators), which will not work at a greater scale. Even at this stage, getting a block through solomining is unlikely and asking pool operators to do it, might work now, but with increasing adoption, pool operators won't be able to satisfy the demand.
Also with DNS most name conflicts are already solved and you can pay for your Windows license in a system which uses OpenAlias with a transfer command to the address pay.microsoft.com, while at a blockchain implementation like BBR somebody might have stolen the name of Microsoft, while with DNS aliases you normally can easily prove it.
Namecoin is also avaiable to use with the OpenAlias system so this also removes another attack vector

Actually about 11 months until it's 50% mined.

Some valid points, fair enough


Didn't completely gloss over it It was the good samaritan who wrote this:


IIRC, it was only later he was employed/affiliated with the core team


If you lose your private key (seed) to your Monero wallet how are you supposed to spend your funds? or are you expected to tell everyone not to send you more money to that address? - exactly the same argument, So losing your keys seems a little straw grabby. The nature of decentralized protocol like this is there is no customer services to call up to issue a password reset. A simple backup will take care of that

There may be some variations of bob, bob-the-builder and bob21912. It's exactly the same on twitter- in fact any other service which allows users to choose their own names. The same 'problem' with your DNS aliases. if you propose users will be so confused between @bob-the-builder and @bob1982_waffle why wouldn't they be confused between bob-the-builder.com and bob1982_waffle.com?. caveat utilitor as always.

Additionally BBR sensibly limits allowable characters in their aliases. See if you can spot the difference between these two:

 

I followed your hangout where you discussed that. It's pretty neat  but comes with it's own set of concerns. eg Malicious resolvers, spoofing/poisoning attacks- -Most resolvers aren't using DNSCrypt, setting up alias requires registering/managing a domain and keeping it renewed so it's not decentralised or optimal from a privacy standpoint arguably, although it's at least cool if you imagine it will take off and you escape worrying about name disputes.

Lets make this simple.

Proof us that BBR or Bitcoin Emission is optimal.

Less talky talky more walky walky.

So BBR is mined half as fast, but at some point the Emission will simply cross the XMR Emission in terms of daily inflation.


PS: I think there is no optimal Emission and we all know fuck nothing about whats right or wrong today. Its an experiment; i also think that most of not all Cryptocurrencies will be replaced with something more advanced in the next 50 years or so.



Thats his thing, if the coin is mined 70% and the price is still the same, whats the difference? Does that mean i shouldn´t buy Bitcoin now as its already +60% mined?

It takes ~ 3 years to mine 70% of XMR. - thats pretty far off from what i can see. For BBR it takes what? 6 Years? and then? No one will buy it because 70% are mined?! 3 years are such a big difference?



Dunno? No one of the core team said something like that. No one knows, its that simple, crystal balls aren´t working.



Everything can be changed or tweaked if needed; its that simple - so far we know absolutely nothing about if it will be needed and except baseless claims no one yet delivered a proof of that.

This threads sucks because it's a tedious rehash with zero original content.

I rate it Zero Bowls of Popcorn.   

Thank you for the Godwin; now we can move on to more interesting and original discussions.

That's the whole point. It's not optimal- But it cannot be changed. So why are we lauding a scheme without optimal parameters as the winner?

Risto actually said if the supply was 70% mined he would have never touched this coin. It isn't too far off when this will be 70% mined.
 
I don't understand why you don't care about the price. Did you just buy because someone you admire or respect encouraged you this is the winner? Did you do your own independent research as to short/medium/long term gain potentials?

In less than a year, (assuming NMC/BTC stays the same) XMR's market cap has to overtake NMC simply to ensure you are not at a loss - that's buying today at a relative low - do not forget many brought in higher. And yet there are speculators amongst you who proclaim a 1000 x rise (to the tune of 7x the current market cap of bitcoin!!) is on the table. Where exactly will the ecosystem for a $35 billion dollar market rise from?

Risto himself would earn 350 million if that were to be true assuming his self-declared holdings are 1)true and 2)not increasing

I would be somewhat satiated if he would just come forward and admit his prediction has absolutely no grounding in reality, just like his 1 million dollars/per bitcoin that he predicted in 2013.

I was responding to "slapper" who said: "we all know you are not a developer". There was no "more appropriate word" - he said something, I responded, fin. I have no idea why you're jumping on the bandwagon and misinterpreting my response to him, but hey, it's a free world;)


The decision was indeed taken by the core team to merge that. As you say, it was a long day, and we were fried.


It didn't at all. His post on Bitcointalk and the revert are not related. It was caught on #monero-dev (as one would expect when something is pushed to staging and causes an issue) -

[2014-09-24T23:02:33+0200] 2014-Sep-25 00:01:56.528495 [P2P8]coinbase transaction spend too much money (14.336009159350). Block reward is 14.332489999244(14.130220173955+0.202269825289)
[2014-09-24T23:02:36+0200] 2014-Sep-25 00:01:56.528601 [P2P8]Block with id: <450775fe7c413c32a6869eac58b074c4b93ae7597d0f11b071a88fc77465ca5e> has incorrect miner transaction
[2014-09-24T23:07:52+0200] <@fluffypony> what distro, otila ?
[2014-09-24T23:08:21+0200] I am lagged..  fedora 20
[2014-09-24T23:10:16+0200] it was maybe waiting tcp/53
[2014-09-24T23:11:11+0200] <@fluffypony> that's weird, it should fall back hardcoded seed nodes if it can't get dns seeds
[2014-09-24T23:11:17+0200] <@fluffypony> good use case to test for, though
[2014-09-24T23:12:25+0200] at least it does not notice if tcp/53 is connection refused
[2014-09-24T23:16:39+0200] stuck in do_handshake_with_peer when I exit, I get only "[node] Stop signal sent"
[2014-09-24T23:19:59+0200] <@fluffypony> welp
[2014-09-24T23:20:02+0200] <@fluffypony> I see it otila
[2014-09-24T23:20:32+0200] <@fluffypony> guess I'm reverting 014708fe71c1379af281ca9ac17e82c159e98e6d

Caught and reverted within 30 minutes of being pushed to staging. It's a mistake, it happens, move on.


We've only had the codebase for a few months. A slocount of just the src folder (excluding tests and epee) is 16310 lines of just cpp code. That's over and above the cryptography. It's a lot to grok and come to grips with. Nonetheless, we do not merge commits "willy nilly". This was done in a rush because we *do* respect CZ (which is apparently not mutual), and if he says that there's a major CN bug and is urgently contacting exchanges we are going to see the commit (which appeared to fix a varint overflow issue) and assume that's what he's talking about. You cannot take this single incident in isolation (given the circumstances) and extrapolate out from there.


I'm pretty sure the majority of my more recent commits are CMake related, so I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.


That person's obviously an idiot - I don't think BBR is stagnant on any level. I understand why you included it - my response wasn't to you or to the information in the infographic, it was to "slapper" bordering on hero worship because he thinks LOC is an indicator of anything.


When have we had the opportunity to do so? We didn't decide to fork Monero, thankful_for_today did. We ended up with it because thankful_for_today wanted to do stuff the community rejected, and we sort-of fell into it. Had we come together as a group and said "oh hey guys, we should create our own CryptoNote coin" I can fully agree with what you're saying. But that isn't the case and that isn't the situation, so we're incrementally refactoring completely undocumented code, building up an understanding of the cryptography (see the Monero Research Lab publications, for instance), and still adding functionality.


The good samaritan that is a member of the Monero core team? I even mentioned he's a member of the Monero core team in my previous post - you must've glossed over that:) In other words, thankful_for_today gave us the blatantly crippled code. When we (the core team, although very much in its infancy and only loosely affiliated at that stage) realised that we fixed it.


That vote was indeed rigged by thankful_for_today and the army of BCN sockpuppets, which is precisely one of the arguments the pro-emission-change users have raised. We (the core team) didn't choose the emission curve. If we don't change it then it is out of respect for the social contract, and not for lack of desire.


You're again assuming that we decided to do this from scratch. Nonetheless, inheriting it does not mean we're bound to the PoW. We have already indicated publicly that we are actively pursuing alternatives as a low-to-medium priority.


Pruning the ring signatures also means that the older part of the chain can no longer be fully verified. There are additional risks that one can intuit that have driven us away from looking at that as a solution. At this juncture we don't feel the need to deal with the blockchain size, although we will tackle these hard problems before it becomes an issue.


On the contrary, BBR's aliasing has a host of problems (such as: what if you lose you private key? how can you reclaim your alias, or are you expected to now tell everyone it's changed? and once there are a hundred variants of "Bob", I still need to have an address book that tells me that Bob Simons' alias is bob1982_waffle and Bob John's alias is bob-the-builder...how is that better than just having their actual addresses in my address book? and in both of these events, how is it *any* better than just having the address?) Instead of going with something that had been done, we developed an aliasing system that *every* cryptocurrency can use, including BBR and Bitcoin, that does not have the problems described. Perhaps you'll want to familiarise yourself with it first before assuming we've just "added in aliases" - https://openalias.org


BBR is based on the same code as we are. Bugs that affect us typically affect them and vice-versa. It's not dreamed up from scratch on any level. CZ did absolutely create a brand new PoW, and I'm not knocking the work he has done, but he most certainly did not start from the design phase and bring it to fruition.


I disagree - as our understanding of the codebase grows and we continue to incrementally refactor it we will eventually create a polished diamond out of the coal we have.


Huh? No. I was using it to demonstrate to slapper that more goes into development than just code, and it denigrates the efforts of those other domain experts if you focus solely on the code monkey(s).


It's not fanfare to show WIP.


We never said we were the only ones innovating. You've taken my response which was directed solely at slapper's troll post wherein he insults me and turned it into some sort of attack against BBR. My post was a defence of myself, nothing more. We want to work *with* CZ, not against him, although I am personally saddened and upset by his post that was simultaneously elitist and personally insulting (funny how you seem to see the same qualities in us - I hope your faith in CZ isn't clouding your ability to objectively see that).

Even rpietila has said the XMR emission is not optimal. I think it's pretty clear looking at the graph that the reason the XMR price struggles so much despite all the fanfare is the money supply is inflating incredibly fast and that drives away some people who would otherwise be interested.

I have nothing against XMR in general, but in anything other than a short trade during the run ups I personally find it quite hard to justify putting down money in it long term.

In three or four years if everything works out the way MEW et al are predicting I'll be there money in hand as supply dries up. If XMR really does become the leader of dark liquidity world wide I think being as close to it as I am I'll be able to see it happening and have time to buy some and still make money, even if that happens in 2015. But until then the sheer amount of money it takes per day even at this relatively low market cap to sustain the price is a bit of a deal killer.

I don't want this to come off as an anti-XMR post at all. But I'm just a little surprised at your defense of the emission since I thought the official line was something like 'what can you do? we didn't set it like that', which is fine considering it's the truth.

To spare us the next 30 pages of bullshit, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5yjrr7OzYk

No, I see (as someone else put it) sexual tension.

The pleasantries are not more than a public facing image. Only skin deep . In private words and actions are dripping with disdain

I am so bothered because I've seen some really low tactics emanating from those in a privileged position in the XMR community (let's not pretend all behavior from other project communities are angelic because that's certainly disingenuous) but that's the worst I've seen so far.  I will post what I have at a later date and perhaps there will be some re-evaluation.

Add some extra graphics, just for historical reference

If you're not incapable of developing, why you are making random git pulls from BBR and inserting them into XMR without an idea of what the code actually does?  Semi-capable might of been a more appropriate word.

Actually, How did that gaffe slip past extensive peer-review by a team of no less than seventeen experienced XMR developers?
Unless it wasn't actually reviewed and you have unfettered access to the repo.

Why did it take a developer of a competing project to point out your mistake so you can revert it?
I'm being a little harsh there, you had a long day and you were probably burned out dealing with the drama surrounding the attack. Understandable.
However it's a point made by zoidberg that if the XMR developers don't fully understand the commits they are implementing and just add features willy nilly from other project some damage could of been done. Malicous backdoor could of been inserted into the XMR this way.

I see you making not so subtle insinuations that crypto_zoidberg is a glorified code monkey, If it wasn't for CZ there could potentially have a mtgox like situation on our hands with poloniex, you should be more respectful about background works. He has done some hand-holding on a number of occasions and you know it well. I actually checked out your git commits. Majority of them are version bumps, string replaces & single line additions. seems if zoidberg role is code monkey your role is  secretarial duties- you are assigned to brush up on the verbiage and misc typos, But I suppose you prefer the role 'architectural visionary' or 'creative director' and consider pushing out code something mostly below you, but something you do to keep you occupied whilst you are having a morning croissant or on the shitter maybe?


Someones been practicing their best Jony Ive impression . I agree with what you said about code volume being a useless metric. Anyone can hire 10 freelancers from bangalore. The only reason it was added to infographic was I heard someone ask if the project was dead due to lack of activity?? So the clear numbers are shown to demonstrate neither projects are stagnating, clearly the fact BBR has less cooks in the kitchen doesn't mean the broth is being cooked slowly, nor is the quality suffering.

About true innovation:

• True innovation starts with: Taking the time to develop an intimate understanding of the codebase you are working with, so you are unrestricted to expand freely without worry.
   Example: auditing the Proof-of-work so it's not blatantly crippled upon launch. A third party good samaritan had to step in to fix Monero's initial borked code, Hardly inspired confidence in the 'real' team.  He had this to say:
  
  
  Quote from: NoodleDoodle on May 07, 2014, 12:53:50 PM
  I took a look at the code and changed some extremely easy to spot "errors"
  By the way, I'm not even a real coder, so whatever changes I made should be easy to spot; especially for experienced developers.
  
  
  
  
• True innovation starts with : Choosing block emission parameters from scratch, instead of just leaving them default because Greed won over in an arguably rigged vote
  If there is anyone who considers the XMR emission schedule optimal and not just a necessary blemish that's good enough and will "have to do" (polar opposite of innovative) I would like to meet them.
  
  
• True innovation starts with: Designing a novel memory-hard blockchain based Proof-of-work function from scratch that's many times faster than the vanilla cryptonight PoW adopted in XMR, yet provides the same level of ASIC resistance. Something which the Monero developers admittedly tried to deny due to lack of understanding until they were educated  by an authority on the subject BBR synchronized from scratch 20x faster than XMR. The difference will be smaller on usual day with same transaction flow but it's undeniably and provably faster
  
  
• True innovation starts with: Designing your cryptographic constructs with the future in mind. In an eloquent and frugal way BBR allows the network particpants to not take onboard more than they need to. The blockchain can be easily pruned, drastically reducing bloat. BBR is already a leader in terms of disk footprint- (5x smaller) such feature only serves to increase the gap.

we could go on, BBR baked in alias support, XMR devs dismissed it as a gimmicky feature, now they are adding in Aliases themselves
XMR community balked at the '1% tax' only to find themselves brainstorming for fundraising ideas for development funds now
BBR was built on a concrete foundation. This was a project dreamed up from scratch. Every detail was carefully planned.

XMR was not designed from scratch, it was cloned from another questionably shady developer, warts 'n all.
Some of the flaws have been polished out.  It's completely fair to say there will be continued polishing but there are certain aspects such as the poor emission rate which will never be fixed. It has to be swept under the rug or twisted with careful marketing to appear as positive feature. Because it was not their creation they do not have the luxury of choosing ideal parameters. Therefore it's built on a sandy foundation which is being retroactively strengthened but it will always remain less than ideal.


Maybe part of this is referring to Monero's ongoing work on moving blockchain out of RAM, or the work on outsourcing wireframe mockups to your unreleased, groundbreaking, this-changes-everything GUI that will allow auntie mabel to easily manage her ring-signature based cryptocurrency portfolio

Meanwhile I have tested a fully functional, clean and intuitive GUI released long ago by BBR; introduced without a whole lot of prior fanfare
I have tested and confirmed blockchain.bin dataset has been reduced in real life. The update was just pushed out, not with a ton of hand waving in advance. None of these are 'innovations' which are being slated for future release or hypothesised about in missives. They just get added then moved onto the next.

Seems if we make an analogy Monero developers stole brought a phone and now just getting acquainted with learning how to use it as they go,while proclaiming they are masters leading the way whilst BBR developers already clearly familiar with the functions and keep mostly low-key just making updates- not so much talking but the work rate is high. . There is nothing wrong with this but you are liars to imagine you are the only ones innovating in this space.

With XMR all it ever is is 'ongoing work' more premature assured congratulatory self-pats on the back and more hubris eminating from core team. You can smell the superiority complex a mile off with you guys..the air is just thick with unwarranted supercilious smug You seem to believe you've achieved enough critical mass to have won the race before it's even really started.  The best part of avoiding the Monero circlejerk not having to deal with a community of insular elitists. You guys embarked on an orchestrated smear campaign to throw every other competing cryptonote coin under the bus and I have some pretty damming evidence including internal conversations  implicating some of the more senior XMR community members in what (even to a casual observer with no skin in the game) is undeniably dirty tactics. As someone else put it some of your PR schemes would make goebbels blush.  Rest assured I will elaborate on that when the dust starts to settle.

I think there needs to be an infographic about this 1% on/off , current miner status, miner fee and what not. Otherwise it is the same sockpuppets always saying how you are hurting the BBR community windjc. Yep, don't hurt the BBR community too much. I'm bleeding.


Regarding mining, BBR OP has clear info.





HOWTO&FAQ thread:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=781961

CPU Mining
The most efficient CPU mining is done with CPUminer-Multi. Complete instructions are on the Boolberry How-To page.

GPU Mining
GPU mining is dynamic and constantly improving. The first post of the GPU Mining thread has current info and the thread itself has lots of information.  

Its not FUD if they're facts. And I have no ill wishes for CZ as implied.
I mine both BBR and XMR and wanted to point out the obvious difference. As you've stated, we can elect to turn off the fee but it requires either finding a pool which has it turned off or choose to solo mine, which both are unlikely scenario for most miners. I dont necessarily oppose the fee but like others I'd like it to be better documented on the BBR thread. For example, is the dev fee part of the total supply of coins or is it in addition?

As the marketing head for BBR, you could take a lesson or two from smooth. You childist behavior such as your sig and forced rebranding turns off a lot of supporters.

"Tax" and "default" are contradictory terms.  I wish my taxes were only ON by default.

Is it hard to switch off?

1% fee is optional, not mandatory. You're entirely free to gravitate to a pool with donation vote disabled. Most of the Monero pools forward at least a portion of their fees towards a development fund too. Same concept, just  tacked on at a higher level instead of baked in to the protocol. Not to mention some of the closed source XMR GPU miners tax users 5% or force them to forfeit hashpower- interesting example of game theory there as users would be out of pocket more by setting no donations and getting crippled slightly than they would lose by enabling donations.

 I'm totally supporting small percentage of donations to be enabled in these fledgling cryptonote projects,
Don't think the reason why needs too much elaboration-- unless you imagine development costs are coming out of the dev's own pocket and they are completely altruistic and self-sufficent. It's nice to assume community will always chip in but huge evidence in donation behavior economic models demonstrates opt in (set it and forget it) is many times more effective than opt out.

 I struggle to find a scenario in which users would object towards an ongoing 1% distribution being awarded to the developer and maintainer of the project (big difference between premine there where dev can do no work and cash out on day 1) - The size of the developers paycheck will directly correlate with the success of the project and how much they are willing to give.  I think the approach taken by BBR is an example of how do it right frankly- Besides With the current market cap of BBR, it amounts to what a competent coder could earn from a weekend project.


TFT was a single point of failure for Bitmonero, so the current monero core crew hijacked it and renamed it to monero, now the project is successful under their leadership. It was a community effort between a group of individuals who saw an opportunity to 'save' it, and part of the reason it flourished . No reason to assume the same could not happen for BBR. Besides, It's a common misconception CZ is working as a single dev, it's not true.

You are right. However, a mandatory small fee in the early stage of the coin is very important.