Bitcoin Forum

A pile of junk coin, that has made its position by somehow replacing LTC as the second coin to trade on Poloniex.

It has features, though, but sadly the features are pointless, and can never go beyond appealing to teenagers and unmarried men in their thirties that have prostituted themselves to become Monero Shills. OMFG!

Horrible coin.

Yeah so um.  Can you explain why?

Have you tried downloading the client? Everything is clunky and slow. I'm not really big on Cryptonote, but I tried Boolberry, just to see if the problem was endemic to Cryptonote, and it isn't. Boolberry was basically one click, fast and everything worked. Using Monero gave me the perception that it was put together by incompetents. These people are holding up a pile of shit and claiming that it's gold. The community is literally full of megalomaniac delusionals. At least put some effort into usability!

Yeah - I did with Bytecoin back pre GUI  ::)

I agree - user friendliness sucks.  There - that's a reason.  How hard was that OP?   ::) :-*

How pathetic:

First user in this thread is a Litecoin user with a Bitmixer.io Singature haha.
Second is a Bytecoin scammer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.0).
Third is a Darkcoin fanboy.


It has features, though, but sadly the features are pointless, and can never go beyond appealing to teenagers and unmarried men in their thirties that have prostituted themselves to become Monero Shills. OMFG!

Go away, privacy is not only a feature its a human right, without privacy no freedom can exist.

Lol no - I said I downloaded the wallet to see what it was about.  Geez ... everybody thinks somebody has an agenda.  I'm strictly an observer  ::)

I gave two you reasons, but apparently you lack the skill of reading between the lines or considering the social impact a small sub-culture can make when it makes lots of noise. Yet you managed to pick up on the usability of it, which is already documented so pointless making a post about.

1. Its position has been helped by Poloniex.
2. It is being shilled by people that are incapable of knowing better.

Monero shills can't do any better than a 3x ad hominem? Sad.

No it doesnt, it has been helped by Bytecoin beeing scammers.
No you confuse XMR with Litecoin, Darkcoin and BCN on that.

Dude.  Idiots in crypto who happen to pick up a coin.  And high transaction volume on an exchange.  Are not net negatives.  

In fact ... bitcoin has those symptoms the worst out of all the coins  ::)

I agree Monero has some problems.  But your thread mades me want to take a second look since you give no negatives (there are stupid people who use it and it trades on an exchange I don't like)  Hmmm ya u go there guy  :-*

So a negative post makes you want to buy the product?

Well that certainly taught me a lesson.

Uh pretty much.  Because what you couch as "negative" - if that's the only "negative" news on a coin.  Then bitcoin is dead ::)

When the poster looks stupid and/or following an agenda, yes it does. Contrarian indicator.

People should learn to troll. That's not as easy as it seems.

Have you read Plato's "Gorgias"? You remind me of Socrates, except you would be younger and have a tattoo.

I'm sorry, but what you see as the difference between "hard to use" and "easy to use" is completely nuanced. You're like a fandroid arguing that sideloading with adb is much easier in 2.3, and everyone should just use 2.3. Usability is not an overnight exercise.

Are BBR's binary builds significantly easier to use for the handful of somewhat technically capable cryptonerds on this forum? Absolutely. Why is Monero not matching those? Because we're exceedingly busy overhauling the core of Monero: https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/tree/development to make room for improved usability. To wit: our next tagged release will include static compilation, but will not include a GUI.

Why? Because a good GUI is not thrown together in a vague attempt to be "first". A GUI requires pragmatism, forethought, and careful planning. Here's an example of how that process works: http://imgur.com/a/ERheR

Do you realise how ridiculous that statement is, and just how at risk you are at being conned throughout your life?

OP, you support Darkcoin..but not Monero?

You don't support Monero, which has had a fairly decent launch, a large capable dev team, and the highest anonymity available, not to mention most popular/successful cryptonote thus far? Are you trolling OP?

Whats worse, is that you base the value of a coin on the amount of shill accounts shilling for it, in that case, then Bitcoin should be the biggest fail of them all, shouldnt it!

I've supported Darkcoin since February, but anyone that isn't blind, deaf, or dumb, can see that Monero is on equal terms if not more, with Darkcoin.

If you had a negative trust rating from Mark Karpeles should I view you as more or less trustworthy?

Fuck me! Visual basic came out 20 years ago - where have you been, man!

Also you can stop with the litecoin bullshit.

Litecoin is not nearly as secure as Bitcoin and it has no genuine features that sets it apart from Bitcoin, it's not even worth using.

Can't wait to try out your GUI. Based on your current client, my expectations aren't exactly high, but time will tell.

I appreciate you being willing to give it a chance:) It is some time away, but I'm sure you'll be sufficiently impressed with it when it officially launches!

Hahaha if only thing you can do to make your coins better is attack Monero you have already fall for the bullshit

So the new GUI is good? And after that, XMR will continue to improve its market position, seeking donations or is it tweets to keep the horse plodding along?

I just JIMP...stoked for the eventual release.

Also that's actually the best way to promote Monero without knowing ANYTHING about its features. Just say it's bad, looking as stupid as you can and... Bingo! Your "enemy" looks smarter without having to say anything.

Next step is hand written letters and church gatherings.

Then maybe a bake sale .. maybe we'll sell girl scout cookies!

Fuck it! Lemonade stand!

Its as if you travelled back in time to early 2011 and started trolling bitcoin. 

I for one prefer to see resources at this point invested in a solid foundation rather than a pretty exterior, which is why I have chosen to invest in and support Monero. A quality GUI will come in time, that is a risk I have chosen to take at this time. For those for whom a quality GUI is a must before investing, the proper course of action is to wait for the GUI to come out, review it, and then decide if to invest in and support Monero.

Honestly, you have the best attitude among anyone associated with Monero. Build something awesome, and I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong.

Sarcasm is okay with me, but sarcasm fails when it uses fallacious reasoning. There is no reason to liken Monero to BTC. There has only been one BTC, and Monero is not a contender, just like DigitalCoin or HeavyCoin or Quark.

The fact that it has to be surrounded by secrecy actually puts you out of the market that BTC is reaching towards.

So the analogy was very poor.

That's a bit deep, man. I have consumed large amounts of homebrew and Even after rereading it a few times I still cannot make sense of it.

EDIT: But it sounds profound.

What has that actually got to do with anything? Are you trying to state that it is easy to make an GUI? Yeah sure when someone else already designed the Bitcoin one and most coins just go with making some adjustments and changing the icons.
If it is that easy then go do it yourself.
This thread is just another FUD attempt it seems.

Err, Yes. High school kids make GUI's all the time. It only seems to be an issue with the XMR MONERO developers. Perhaps they think that MONERO users are too stupid to type commands on a CLI.

Is it not possible that the true BTC market hasn't been determined yet?  Is it not possible that we haven't even begun to grasp what a BTC even is   8)

In 5 years someone might say "There has only been one Monero"... to rule out the possibility is asinine this early in the crypto race.

This is totally the reason I use windows! Right again J1mb0! You so smart  :D

Have fun when you end up with stuff like this:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HOFOy4gJ-Xg/UM8vczUEliI/AAAAAAAABC0/zp5ztOqG1jY/s1600/3912353392c52324_o.png
http://i.stack.imgur.com/yUyY1.png
The majority of the users of crypto are too stupid to type them or too lazy.
Hence why some are complaining.
I told you, if it's that easy then do it yourself and contribute to the project.  ;)

Yes! Here we have it. If the Monero shillsters and bullshitters spent a 10th of their energy in helping Monero with coding or infrastructure then we would all be happy. Instead we are here.

I'm not in any way related to Monero. Except from owning a few. Your point is very much invalid.
Anything else?
Besides the developers are hard at work, and actually communicate more often with the community then most others. What else can you ask of them?

Oh right you are again J1mb0, nobody has done exactly zero work on helping with this. So good of you to point it out, yet again. Man, I guess we should all just listen to J1mb0 and spend a tenth of our energy helping Monero! The other 9/10 of your energy can be spent doing everything else J1mb0 says, which is probably gonna be spending more energy helping Monero because he's such a big fan.

Different release philosophies. BBR went with MVP while XMR is using "pragmatism, forethought, and careful planning."

I just dealt with your point, yet you have responded.

Yes, in 5 years time, Monero might be the King of altcoins, presiding over a parliament of other amazing coins such as beertokens or sexcoin.

But I'm kind of edging towards the idea that the 1000s of altcoins out there are entitled to make the same claim.

So the point you make is mute at best.

KBM - You are so kind - thank you for your encouragement.

Monero is great because it is a fork of Bytecoin!  ;D

I just worry about some of the Monero fans who get a bit carried away and vitriolic - it helps no fan of Cryptonote.

Absolutely agreed. I posted about this previously:


Right now, BBR just works- one click setup. It syncs faster than XMR. The interface is not in wireframe or mockup stage, it's out now and perfectly intuitive  It improves upon the anonymity of CN  (http://boolberry.org/files/Boolberry_Solves_CryptoNote_Issues.pdf)

It has inbuilt capability to reduce the size of the blockchain by 30-70% (http://boolberry.org/files/Boolberry_Reduces_Blockchain_Bloat.pdf) BBR features aliases, so you can send money to your friend tony by typing  @tony and clicking send , just like twitter messages. Meanwhile with XMR you are forced to copy and paste long sequences of numbers. 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.

BBR has got a much more attractive emission curve that actually had a bit of foresight. XMR was cloned verbatim without much thought it seems. greedy miners will love it though.. BBR has more sensible block times. with BBR there is more chance for ecosystem to mature to a level where a larger pool of participants can gain rewards, XMR will be 50% mined in a year, which has been a death sentence for other coins.  BBR will require less daily BTC inflow to maintain the current price, the list goes on.

 Monero is praised as the 'only contender in the risk for global liquidity market' or some shit, claimed as the next litecoin, pumped all day long by rpietila and his band of merry men. Jumping on the trollbox is a harrowing experience because you get accosted by guys who ask if they can just take 2 minutes of your time to tell you about monero almost instantly. We're seeing 1000x price increase predictions for XMR. Not going to happen of course but it sounds good, and that's what matter- gives a target and a bit of hope. Who would want to miss out on 1000x gains? no-one so join the train! Meanwhile BBR is ranking barely above CleanWaterCoin, below applecoin, guldencoin, zccoin etc and constantly hemorrhaging. What a Sorry state of affairs. I know which one I see more upwards potential in

XMR proponents and shills will come here and spout the same story 'we are not taking part in a race' we're doing things slowly and gradually. Tortoise and the hare style. They make these insinuations BBR has rushed and that'll cost them the race that they are already losing for completely different reasons

If you haven't actually used the two, go and use them both side by side. BBR just works well, now. Perfectly decent user experience. I know I come across here like a massive BBR shill but it just boggles my mind to see the disparity in valuation. BBR is almost 5% of the price of XMR. you can literally nearly by 20BBR for every 1 XMR. The fundamentals are not in place to support that fuckery.

True enough, they do communicate with the "community". What were you asked to do this week? Tweet for 0.2 XMR? Or did you get in on the "tweet for 0.4 XMR" action?

Surely not. I am truly shocked!  >:(

OH yeah! That's why I don't go to baseball and football games or wear jerseys. One carried away individual has totally swayed my opinion on an entire team so hard before that I almost wrote a book about it!

You're making no sense here retard

I'm not entirely sure as I'm not watching Monero that closely but that wasn't a post by a developer. It was rather by a community member. You don't even realize what a man fluffy is. He actually gave me an objective opinion on other coins which you can rarely get from anyone who's invested in X coin. What's wrong with giving out XMR for a tweet?
Stop complaining about forks, there is a reason these coins are open source! Your point is invalid.

I'm thinking this is what is causing your problems: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.240

moot...there you learned something positive tonight  8)

1. There is a lot of butthurt in this thread. Reminds me of 2011 when the very first set of alt coins came about.  ::)

2. I have read the Monero whitepaper and downloaded the source in a VM and tinkered with it a bit. As of now I currently support Monero and will keep a close eye on it.

3. Boolberry? What kind of messed up name is that?........may as well call it IntStrawberry or DoubleBlackberry or LongRaspberry.  :D

i think all alt coins all just for making money. all of them about the innovations are just stunt. ;D

Link to the whitepaper?

Original CryptoNote whitepaper: http://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf
Our mathematicians and cryptographers raw (and sometimes snarky;) annotations are here: http://monero.cc/downloads/whitepaper_annotated.pdf
The review of the CN whitepaper as presented by one of our mathematicians is here: http://monero.cc/downloads/whitepaper_review.pdf

Making money is part of having funds for development. Most of the coins now days are purely for pump and only that.

Monero appear to have nice group of developers backing it. Some of them are long time forum users here.

Operating the XMR wallet / daemon is easy as 1-2-3. 

Simplewallet will output your address into a txt file for easy copy/pasting into your batch file.  Using the transfer command is also a simple format.  I don't see why people need to bash XMR because they are afraid of command line interfaces.

See, now that's a well written criticism. Worlds apart from OP's faggotry that included no arguments whatsoever.

Anyone care to comment on it and write a rebuttal? Fluffypony, maybe?


(disclosure: Monero owner writing)

I believe both fluffypony and smooth have responded to those exact criticisms every single day for the last 2-3 months.

Here's one response:



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:

..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!

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?

..which were affordable because nobody fucking wants the coin.

Oh look! Another time traveler who knows for sure that blocks should yield exactly the amount of value that BBR produces! How convenient!

Bullshit! This is a race, and it seems that the only thing with developers running a marathon here is Monero. If they have too much class and style to not say that, then I'm gonna put it right in front of your face: The competition is simply out-classed and totally out of its element here. It will lose its breath.

I commented on that post elsewhere (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=751095.msg8476903#msg8476903) (Anotheranonlol has been cut-and-pasting that everywhere, so I had to dig around to find my reply, and turns out it wasn't even a reply to that comment specifically).

Basically, the difference between the two in terms of usability is incremental. We did not build the 0.8.8 release statically as there were too many boost issues on various platforms, and we needed people to be able to dynamically switch one boost version out for another. The next tagged release will have boost linked in statically. With regards to the GUI, there are already a number of GUIs for Monero. They are all just as usable as the Boolberry one, which makes them all equally useless to anyone outside of the very small circle of technically proficient people on this forum. They're not intuitive or natural for a non-cryptocurrency native.

In other words, you have to split target audiences in two. Firstly, there's a relatively group of people (no more than a few tens of thousands) who know or use this forum (check box one), are interested in cryptographically sound software (check box two), don't buy into gimmicky "features" (check box three), and have a degree of technical proficiency (check box four). Secondly, there's the rest of the planet (check box one), who may have a peripheral interest now or in the future in using digital currency (check box two), and who may run malware-ridden systems or be unable to use a computer without the simplicity of an Apple product (check box three). In-between these two groups is a sliver - a very tiny third audience - who know or use this forum (check box one), are very opinionated and express their opinion loudly (check box two), and have a technical proficiency below what one would expect (check box three - and that's an observation and not meant to be an insult).

Monero in its current form (command-line, optional GUIs you may have to compile yourself) is perfectly useable by the first audience, as is Boolberry. In the future Monero hopes to be perfectly useable by the second audience, but right now both Monero and Boolberry are completely useless for that target audience. That tiny sliver - the third audience - are not catered for by Monero unless they are willing to ask and learn, whereas Boolberry appears to "work out the box" for them.

It is not worth our while expending effort and doing something half measure to incrementally improve usability for that third sliver. We will, as a natural order of ongoing development, make things easier for that group, but most likely not to the level Boolberry has. Instead we choose to focus on improving the stability and usefulness for our current audience (the first group), whilst also pursuing a long-term goal of making Monero useable by the second group. Between now and when we reach that long-term goal, those that are in the third sliver will either disregard Monero until it accomplishes that long-term goal and is useable by them, or they will apply their minds, ask questions, and move into the first group.

I am a large owner of Bitcoin since 2011 (and married since 2003 since that was of importance to the OP  :D)

I have bought 1%+ of the monero emitted so far, in my campaign that I told in advance (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=702140.msg7935609#msg7935609).

The reason for buying Monero and not any other altcoin, before of after, is outlined in the Altcoin observer thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=624223.msg6923973#msg6923973).

The two basic qualifiers for me to buy into a coin are:

- being the first to introduce a technical feature not implementable in Bitcoin;

- fair launch and reasonable emission schedule.

These are, in my understanding, the fundamentals that make it possible for a coin to stand the test of time, because out of these only grow the market niche, the community of reasonable people, and the adoption.

Monero is scam?
I never got that idea at all.
Ok, it is scam because the wallet is clunky... what? Everything is clunky in BTC world I never ever ran a wallet until Electrum came out! Hours downloading a .dat... or synchronizing? WTF?

I honestly completely fall in for those "shills and bullshit", I have no perception of a problem and I still don't have one.

BBR... okay, why not.

How is being truly anonymous pointless?

Your first point is completely ridiculous, are you a fan of transparent transactions that make litecoin less private than a PayPal account?

The world is changing, slow movers get left behind.

Yet one of the main thing that attracted people to Bitcoin is anonymity (semi-anonymous). They just can't state a good reason why Monero is bad. The same happens with DRK.
Just look at the volume of Bytecoin and you will know everything right away.

Awww that's so cute.

I know it is the CryptoNote whitepaper. I was looking for Monero whitepaper that the poster indicated he had read. For example, if someone said Boolberry whitepaper/presentations, I found them on the Boolberry thread.

This might be the type of "shilling" that people are complaining. Now, CryptoNote = Monero, when it is far from it. It should not be called Monero whitepaper, that would be plagiarism.

"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.


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?


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. "


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."



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.

Why?


When do you expect the second group to start using it?

The word you were looking for is sliver, not slither, Snakes slither.

Because we were having endless issues with statically compiled boost not playing nicely on some systems. As a reminder, the release in question is 2 months old, so we've since moved past this and it will no longer be an issue in the next tagged release.


I'd expect them to start using it sometime between now and mid-2040.

Thanks for the catch:) I'll fix it now!

You better check your math.


Because some changes are more risky and disruptive than others, and need to done with greater care and planning. Some of the changes you mentioned, such as not being optimized, were fixed relatively quickly. Others will be fixed in due time, and obviously the experience so far shows that the coin can do quite well, thank you, despite not having changes that you apparently don't fully understand pushed out too quickly.

(Good) software development is hard, okay? Are you actually a software developer in any way? Because frankly you sound pretty ignorant about this, even if you make some other good points from time to time.

The difference between the two right now in terms of usability is not incremental, but visible and apparent. That's what's real. The monero GUI mockup is sexy. Looks like a lot of thought went into it. Good job there. But For now that's what it is, a mockup. BBR gui is proven here today. The user experience is hardly the opposite, it just works.  There's this constant narrative in any monero supporters posts that they are doing things properly, other coins have done a botch job.

I wager any idiot here on this forum could work there way through downloading and sending a transaction with the BBR wallet. It's a relatively one click download and install. I find it much easier than bitcoin-qt or even electrum. I encourage anyone to try the two side by side and document the process. Using BBR was like a sigh of relief in comparison to XMR. - Sure a dumb mac user can setup a VM to try out XMR. or type in a sequence of commands and 'apply their mind' - Why would they want or need to do that though.

Maybe BBR can add a little privacy slider and cleanup a few things but it's a really simple process even today. BBR dev can forget about it for a while now and focus on underlying things.

The same cannot be said for Monero in it's current state We are not arguing about future things here, as monero could come out with an earth shatteringly user friendly GUI that enables grandma to send tokens to uncle bob encoded in ring signatures just as easily as ducknote or quazarcoin or boolberry could. The point is they haven't.

You say " They're not intuitive or natural for a non-cryptocurrency native." I'm sorry but who is your target demographic? We are talking about an alpha level altcoin, launched by anonymous group of individuals with questionable motives, promoted on subforum of a forum and on obscure exchange trollboxes. It's not permeating into the mainstream anytime soon, regardless of how shiny the buttons on the GUI are.

You split it into 2 broad groups, people that have a level of technical proficiency, and people that don't. I don't think it would be a stretch to imagine there are people on this forum who have no clue how to manually install boost on OSX, then setup and sync the monero daemon, then type in the command to create their wallet, and so forth, but who manage just fine to run precompiled xxxcoin-QT wallets who will ask 'how do I copy/paste from cmd prompt? when it comes to monero.

why this is continually used as a subtle attack against competing coins. The notion that you aren't in a rush to make things easy for the 3rd group and instead focusing on doing business in the back, so BBR has screwed up because it's already managed to make things perfectly easy for the 3rd group is something that keeps being repeated.  Used as a con when it's not one.  . We are getting the supporters parroting that same thing ad infinitum, implying they are the only group which puts any though into anything.

It's great monero is doing things methodologically, (no sarcasm), the whole GUI thing isn't that important really. It's a small pool of participants right now, and it is true you could take a little time to learn.  It's more the reaction to it. If XMR had GUI and BBR didn't, my god, you would not hear the end of it. When the opposite is true, complete nonchalence. No one seems to cares what other coins are adding because XMR can do it in the future so it wins by default is what seems to be happening now

well,time will told us who is right

Actually no, it isn't a mockup. It is the actual GUI code that will eventually be released into an integrated application (with bug fixes of course). A mock up is a simulation or model. This is the actual early development code being released for testing and feedback.


As I explained on the BBR thread, this is because you don't understand what is actually important. Feature wars and being first to release one feature or another is (obviously, as demonstrated in the real world) not that important. You can rant all you want about XMR not having this or that feature and the reason no one cares is not because of some conspiracy, shill campaign, or whatever sort of paranoid delusion you are always spouting off about. It is simply because no one cares.

You described quite a few coins there, including BBR. Thank you for the vote of confidence!

It's not just a mockup - we pushed out binaries of the interface a week ago. It is not wired up, and there is still a lot of work to be done, but the interface is way past mockup stage.


I never said it was a screw-up, I was just stating why we do not have a similar GUI as part of the Monero core. Incidentally, Jojatekok's Windows Monero client (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=683365.0) is one-click to run, it auto-updates itself, and is available in a bunch of languages (16 if memory serves). Literally its only downside is that it is Windows only, but that appears to be the majority of the target audience served by the BBR GUI, no? So I'd throw it straight back at you - why are you using this as a not-subtle-at-all attack against Monero, when an equivalent already exists for Monero? Come, now, this is a silly argument to be having.


Now let me ask: what is up with all this "BBR vs. XMR" stuff?

I'm going to reiterate what I've said on more than one occasion: we like crypto_zoidberg very much. We have shared code across the fence on more than one occasion. There are changes he's implemented that we do not agree are a good idea, and it's ok for us not to agree with everything another person does. It would be a particularly boring world if we all just agreed with each other all the time:)

If someone asks my honest opinion about an aspect of BBR of course I will answer honestly, in a positive or a negative sense, just as I have been openly honest about Monero's shortcomings (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=751605.msg8481450#msg8481450). Recently, however, there's been a great deal of baiting that has gone on, and I've been suckered into responding to fallacies and nonsense in a way that could be viewed as me having a negative opinion of crypto_zoidberg, when that is not the case. I wish him all and his cryptocurrency all the best, and I don't see any reason why both can't coexist without the need for constant comparison by supporters on both sides.

Hi,

"You better check your math." < numbers may be rough, I'll correct it and apologize. could you post the exact figure?

It's easy to understand (good) development is hard. I'm addressing this constant argument about any other coin with the exception of Monero being rushed.  Monero was the one launched without changes initially. Changes which were 'To be fixed in future" - Of course there have been changes, it's plain to see. and of course there will be changes in future, some of which take longer. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

What is wrong is this notion perpuated by monero zealots that XMR is perfectly allowed to have hiccups or flaws, because they can fix some of those in the future, yet any other coin can't have hiccups because that's not okay and that means they've rushed.  I mean BBR was the one which took longer to release (BBR made some fairly large changes to a greater magnitude than XMR) Somehow in that case, BBR is the one that rushed! How does that even make sense.  

Whenever I come here and get jumped by these various beleibers wearing I heart monero t-shirts who are plainly in love with this supposed soon-to-be silver to btc's gold. (I know there was one before, but this one is shinier) I feel like i'm getting a pillow over my mouth and telling me to shh, you can't fight it..

You can even consider some of the changes implemented by other coins as stopgap solutions. While XMR supporters go wild and rejoice that they haven't taken half-measures, and plan to do everything in one go. The other coin can potentially fix it in one go too, and still enjoy the benefits the stopgaps might have afforded them.
during the meantime.

I also know XMR will do perfectly well, in it's current incarnation, it's apparent. Doesn't even matter the specific reasons why it Will- it will do so regardless of criticism levied against it

You know yourself some of the params associated with XMR cannot and will not be changed. It was a decision that was made once and now we're stuck with it.

To answer your question; re: am i a software developer -  It's not my occupation. stopped needing to work about 3 years ago, hopefully will continue that for next 60-70 years, if i live that long  ;D . I certainly wouldn't do it for fun.
But I've developed some software, so I guess that makes me a software developer in some way? also I wrote a HTML page once but i messed up on the img tags. I'll come clean and say i'm not that good with computer to be truthful. but welcome to be educated.

Questions for you: 1) Do you consider the emission curve of XMR to be preferable to the one chosen by BBR 2) do you consider the 60s block time to be optimal, or would you preferred it to have been changed?

+1. Exactly.

But it's not pruned, it's 'pruned'. It will continue growing forever - just because he bought an extra year or two for something that's not even really a problem for easily over five years doesn't really sell me on it right now. Specifically because it's an partial solution to something that's not important right now when the chain is small. If he doesn't spend time on things that are important right now - building community, a real GUI, protocol bug fixes, multisig, firing btc-mike .. and instead spends all day working on things that have zero effect right now .. but can be done in the future .. then why would I ever think that he's gonna be working on the right thing? If one were to take this illegitimate 'pruning' as a selling point .. I would feel that there's a distinct lack of prioritization. I'm just not sold on that one, because of the trade offs involved (below). He has time to create a database - so why not work on that? Yes, I agree that 'pruned' in an embedded DB would be fantastic, but the reality is that taking a potshot on my mixins isn't the way to 'prune' cryptonote. I don't know what is .. but it's not that.

That's just it - now there's mandatory mixin features, you're left with no freedom to choose to mix at all .. and you pay higher tx fees because of that. What does this spur? Someone on the CN site said it best: A tragedy of the commons! It will get to a point where the biggest damn transactions will be chosen over the small ones, to an extreme and much faster when on a comparison with bitcoin or even Monero. The transactions are already larger with CN - there's only so many that can fit into a block, and even then there's only so much to the adaptive limit. The space will run out, and miners will cash the transactions worth the most value. It will cause transaction witholding attacks etc etc .. not something I'd want to encourage. Apart from that .. CZ decided to make space by trimming RS's. That means this data is not there to mix with when it originally would have been! Now we absolutely need miners to cash the highest mixin transactions in order to make more of an anonymity set, so that you can remain cryptographically anonymous in the first place!

Monero was launched by TFT, not the team that is in control today (I know you know this). I was here since the launch was delayed about an hour and a half because TFT couldn't compile binaries. Shit yea I made some Moneros, then I bought much more than I mined on top of that! Why would you need a 'proper' relaunch when there was no violation of the social contract in the original? It was fair in every regard. Just because theres no DB doesn't mean it's not fair. That just means it needs improvement .. because it would be retarded to relaunch a fair coin that was taking up a little more disk space than bitcoin, but was still totally accessible to anyone that was asking for it. How do you have a problem with people taking control of an open source project? I'm just not seeing a problem with this .. people decided to support Monero, the currency, and then the original team or two (probably more factoring in the coin-mill argument) made a decision that exactly zero people agreed with .. and an alternative was offered by the very same group that's in control today. The community voted them in, and the old idiots out. What we were left with was a group of people that haven't fucked us over to date. I consider that a good decision.

btc-mike mentioned somewhere that he made comments in that paper as well .. not sure what you're doing defending the language part. Also - peer review. Btc-mike seems to know English. Hell, CZ probably could have paid someone twenty dollars and got someone to read it for grammar .. not my problem. Fact is - he didn't do it, and chose to release a shoddily-written white paper .. which are generally things that suffer through incredible amounts of abuse regardless of grammar errors or the fact that CZ wrote it. No amount of tears after the fact is going to change that. Guess it's time to make another go at that one.

My concern with BBR is not that the development is slow or in process, where did I say that? My concern with the development of BBR is that he is working on:
It's insane to think that with the CN protocol being shoved down everyone's throats .. but now within a month .. even that wasn't good enough! No! We're gonna shove more crap down your throat! Just too much information coming at once. People were still trying to understand wtf CN was, and here comes some guy who not only says it has flaws .. but adds novelty features to it! If it had flaws .. why the fuck wasn't he fixing them?! Again, I consider his method of compressing/trimming the blockchain a hack .. because of the tradeoffs. A database has zero trade offs, and yields the same shrinkage his solution does! Good luck trying to sell people on "Well, instead of compressing stuff like those other guys are taking so long to do we just cut parts out to have the exact same result for you, so long as you're willing to pay a little more! Also, enjoy waiting a day for your transaction to be picked up in ten years! At least at the end of the wait you can save a billionth of a microsecond and just have someone send you money to your alias!"


You don't need trust for a wallet address either. Just because I have to right-click copy and paste one string doesn't really make me mad I have to do the same with the other. Then there's the name squatting -- again introducing a tragedy of the commons. You're setting people up against each other on shit that doesn't need to be implemented into the protocol. Oh the horror of copying and pasting!
Which works if I know about less than ten people. Anything more than than an I'm gonna save the alias in a notepad anyways - because again tragedy of the commons will force people to compete for alice1, alice2, and alice3. How do I hold all these alices? In a notepad - with their last name and other contact info the same as I would with XMR. It's a non-benefit novelty feature that will wear itself out as soon as people have to compete for aliases.


Yeah - funny thing demand is. If people want the coin, and you have what produces the coin .. are you gonna feel compelled to give them that for cheap? The bounty for the BBR miners to be open sourced was considered a fair price for it at the time (otherwise there would be no source). Because the value offered was less than what is currently offered for an open source XMR ATI miner, I'm making the correlation that demand was less. The market cap has already reached a significant value to afford open sourcing the XMR Nvidia miner, and only time will pass before the bounty will be considered significant enough to open source the ATI miner. Whether this will correlate with an increased market cap, increased difficulty, or decreased demand are not up to me. As the value currently stands at roughly 500 XMR and some BTC, I don't think it will be soon. Fortunately, a small developer fee is being easily bought every day .. while still giving people fair access to minting the coin. If it weren't then nobody would use the program.



I guess I should explain - my personal stance is that absolutely none of us knows exactly what emission curve is correct for a cryptocurrency in 2014. Not how long it should go on for, not how much should be in the reward .. we're getting a good idea on block times but that's about it. I think many agree that a couple weeks is too short .. but look at some of the PoW/PoS coins that are still around. Clearly I'm not 100% right, and don't claim to be because it would be insane to tell these people they're wrong unless I was from the future and knew the correct emission for a cryptocurrency. In short - I don't argue the point because I have no legitimate opinion about the emission curve, and I'm okay with not knowing exactly how it's going to turn out.

I think most people dismiss it as a bug .. because if we all understood CN, we would have had a valid understanding of the block rewards and known before TFT launched the coin. Shit was open source from the launch. The social contract is in github, not on the OP .. that's why this shits open source. TFT lied to us, but the social contract is and has always been the current emission. The only fix I think anyone can agree on would be to change the block times, and keep the emission. That's probably gonna be a 'run this version of the source or that one, up to you' kind of thing though .. I hope it happens and there's no serious divide like the last time something like that was used in XMR.

I've seen the QT creator screenshots. Can't touch it though.  Where could I find the link to try it out in the flesh.

What's actually important is nothing more than convincing others what's important. Perception. It's clear XMR has already solidified their position there. It's autopilot mode and keeping on appearances somewhat now. Just do everything as you're already doing now. More missives, more donations, more background work. More price targets, more market analysis, more acceptance, more adding snow to the snowball. The unstoppable rolling snowball. Much as I'd love it to BBR can't recover from sub 100k market cap to 1million anytime soon, even though rightly it's apparent it doesn't deserve to be valued below a ton of shitcoins and what..15-20x less than XMR.

XMR could stagnate a little but stay relatively stable and as long as you inject the mentality everyone here is part of the new wealthy elite- and you can join today and be amongst the 1% you are onto a winner. Investing in XMR is a bet on a solid foundation (Cryptonote), with solid, personable group of devs, a great PR effort, some of it in manifisted in pretty clever ways. You might not even know anything about crypto and sole reason for investing in it might be purely because you're amongst a crowd which doesn't tend go down with sinking ships often or end up with egg on their face that much. In itself that's not a bad decision

Supporting another coin now is pissing in the wind.  They will have to break their backs to even get close to getting the recognition XMR would get for doing the same thing. We'd need a few events like a colossal fuck up from XMR and the opposite from another coins dev. Brand new revelations or something similar to start seeing a slight sentiment shift

I think rpietila has posted the most exact emissions charts. I tried to link them but couldn't find it. Perhaps he can help.


I have said several times that neither would have been my first choice. I'm more confident of my opinion about the block time. I don't think anyone really understand what makes a "best" emission curve, and I have said that as well.

The links are here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg8388993#msg8388993

I think you will likely have the same issue with boost libraries though. Static binaries are still a work in progress but if you install boost the above should work.

It was easiest to add sig pruning before launch. BBR can add a database later, when it is needed.


There is not a mandatory mixin feature. Tx fee is not variable.



Yes, they get torn to shreds. Unfortunately we made a mistake, but we took the feedback and corrected the error (http://boolberry.com/files/Block_Chain_Based_Proof_of_Work.pdf).

It is 39.4%. Compares favorably to to the bulk of the alts, though.


I think that neither the emission curve nor the block time is optimal (my expertise is much better in the emission curve though). The Monero devs inherited them from TFT, and changing them now would require a near-unanimous support from the community.


Here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=702140.msg8108185#msg8108185)

From your chart,


isn't that ~49.1% (From your numbers) or am I missing something?


True. Can't see it happening. It's relatively early in the came but would upset the apple-cart. Better follow the the LTC approach and just stick with what we've got, wart's 'n all. The classic 'silver to btc's gold' as well as 'asic resistant' lines can be re-used, plus a few new ones. Once the emission dies down a little things should calm a bit at least. Hopefully some cash will go out of the old and into the new.

The correct date for one year from start of emission should be 17.04.2015 not 22.08.2015

to clarify: it's ~49.1% if you interpret my comment as referring to within a year from the date I posted the comment, or ~39.4% you posted if you interpret it as referring retrospectively to the start of the emission from the time it was launched by another developer under a different name, not in it's current incarnation (taken over and rebranded as MRO/XMR by a new group. )

You're on OS X, right? Here you go: http://monero.cc/downloads/guipreview/mac/monero.zip

Per the Monero Missive from last week when the binary was released:

"We know everyone is quite keen to play around with the GUI. We are still doing a great deal of underlying work, but we wanted to get the interface out there for everyone to have a play and see how they like it. There are some bugs (for example, resizing the MiniWindow interface does not work), and there are some spelling errors that we'll fix as we pull everything out for Qt Linguist to handle translation. But if you're happy to play around then please grab a binary - we'll take feedback in the form of github issues as soon as we've finalised the initial release of the interface and have it up there. "

Your own presentation, page 9 and after talks about nothing but forced mixins:

http://www.slideshare.net/boolberry/boolberry-solves-cryptonoteflaws-37055246

Also, your developer has said you are wrong here also:


Also, this is discussed here: https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=239


Additionally .. are you joking or serious that the tx fee is not variable with the size of the transaction? Not much of an abuse deterrence here, now that you're entirely dependent on forced mixins to provide 'guaranteed' anonymity.

Hi kbm.

It's important. Anonymous transactions with a lot of mixins or transactions that send big amounts have a very big size, and 90% of such tx size - is ring signatures.
So it's important to save blockchain size if it possible, and FYI -it's was just a few lines to implement this (https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry/commit/714b066189e44f7b65d48f33f83ccc549cdc7896#diff-d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e).

a) We have more real GUI than you guys, it's just a fact.
b) Architectural changes that will require hardfork better to implement before launch, so i implemented those features that i supposed to be important fixes of CN and can't be fixed in future without hardforks. You prefer to build community instead of it and later torment network with hardforks ? ... well, Monero obviously had no choice since it was launched by TFT, and i could understand it. But trying to convince people now that it is normal practice sounds senseless.

a) It's legitimate in BBR, and it is illegitimate in XMR. Feel the difference.
b) It's obviously that db is not critical for next few months. Atm end-user won't feel any difference - in BBR we have about 1-2 seconds for loading blockchain from storage file. So now better to focus on really critical issues.

kbm, you either lie or just don't understand technical details: pruning ring signatures do not affect any mixin's or anonymity, this make help you to understand why (if really you want):

https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQFMVqRI.png&t=543&c=FsxZj6FQ84lPMw


Skipped other part of post since there nothing to discuss.


UPDATE: About whitepaper - all Monero's activists comments was focused on everything except main - conception of blockchain based PoW. And even after  dga's post with concrete comparsion  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=624223.msg8442954#msg8442954) - it was ignored by Moneros - that is the best prove that this is well done.

Kbm really isn't a lying kind of guy. He's an XMR supporter yes but not a mindless shill or troll. I'm sure he just misunderstood on this point, and if he has questions about I would be happy to help him understand. Zoidberg is correct on this point.

smooth, i'm sorry that i said it in that rude form, just f@#king tired of XMR supporters who "just misunderstood on this point" - it is not the first time, and not second.

And if you knew that kbm was wrong there why you didn't correct him ?  ;)

I largely disagree on this point, and I think it is fairly important.

It is better to be able to manage hard forks effectively with thoughtful design, good communication, broad buy-in, and successful execution (many of which ultimately reinforce the others). If hard forks become a "torment" (or worse are viewed as something that can't be done at all) this is a symptom of a much more serious problem with the development process and community that points toward paralysis, stagnation, and, likely, death.

Not that there was anything wrong with launching a CryptoNote fork with a different blockchain design from the start though (separate question).

There is a likely point of extreme stability, maturity, and near maximum adoption where further hard forks become both impractical and unnecessary. But as long as coin is young and in active development you had better plan for hard forks or you can't adapt and will likely be left behind. No one can make every important decision in advance.

This is theoretical though, as Monero hasn't delivered any hard forks yet. So we will see. If we fail to pull them off I think we will be in trouble.

Because he writes long posts and has a bad habit of not breaking up paragraphs, which I find makes them extremely hard to read, so I usually don't. I don't know if he is a native English speaker or not, but either way I find your writing easier to follow than his.

Your attitude is appalling and quite shocking, crypto_zoidberg, especially given that I spoke so highly of you just a few posts back in this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=751095.msg8487148#msg8487148). I am so disappointed in you - I genuinely and truly believed you were more of a man than this. I thought I had read your character well and found you to be honourable, but now I see I was gravely mistaken.

I will not speak to your individual points since I have no desire to continue to engage and re-engage over a debate that is largely irrelevant. I do believe that both Monero and Boolberry have something to offer the community at large. I have, however, lost all respect for you and for Boolberry this evening, and I am saddened by this turn of events and the dishonourable behaviour I have observed.

Oh and as for responding to dga - if arguing over "the best" PoW algorithm was worth more than 20 seconds of my valuable time I would have responded. I respect dga very much, but I do not see a need for endless and ongoing PoW comparisons. We are not bound to CryptoNight by blood, and if we change in future you can bet it will be to something superior like a future iteration of Cuckoo Cycle and not to something functionally indistinguishable like "Wild Keccak". Rehashing that argument over and over is pointless.

In the original cryptonote code it is not. However, ultimately miners will prioritize smaller and simpler transactions with the same fee so if you want a large transaction to confirm quickly (if at all), you probably need to put a bigger fee on it in practice.

I understand what you mean, it's extremly important to be able to fix issues even if it need's hardfork. And this is exactly why i implemented alerts - that make users aware of critical updates asap.

But i still very disagree with you "disagreement".
Hard fork is very painful especcialy for big network - painful and slow process, since you need to wait until about 95% of network gonna update sortware. And unfortunately you don't have any reasonable way to force them to do that.
And i talk now about the case when everything is okay with community. The worse case will be if some part of comunity(or some silent miners) will disagree with hardfork changes and they would try to ingnore that - this may do hardfork impossible at all.

I have now doubt that you aware of how difficult it would be to make a hardfork for bitcoin now(if they want), and how much time it will take.

I meant it would be perfect for developers to be able make hardforks easily when they want - but it has some contradictions with crypto-currency nature (in my vision): it's a basement as a set of known rules and technologies. And when you change a basement it's very risky to ruin the whole construction.

So my point that hardfork is a bad case for currency, especcialy for widespread currency.

I argue that none of them are widespread, nor even particularly close. If Bitcoin has problems with this issue, well, see my previous post for my opinion on that. It applies to Bitcoin as much as it applies to any other coin. Their example is not one to follow.

Well, thanks
you are not giving me any chances to post something wrong  ;)

fluffypony, it is no doubt that you simply hypocrite. You sometimes pretend to be friendly and nice to bbr, but don't lose any chance to spread sensless FUD against BBR and me.
So keep you word and stop "that largely irrelevant debate".

No its not; you dont need to wait on anyone, you simply make a block out where the hardfork gets active, lets say 1 month in the future. So people have at least a month time to uprade their software.
What it needs to do a hardfork is communication with the users and service providers and our communication with them is pretty good.

Funny enough that you will also have to hardfork as mentinoed in the XMR economy thread; when the blockreward runs out and we simply rely on tx fees, this won´t work in the next years, a minimum block reward is needed.

Sorry but its just naive to think that the current cryptocurrencies will survive the next 100 years without a single hardfork.



Says the one who decides which ring signatures to cut off in BBR...
It´s simple: the users will decide if they accept the changes or not.  

This is actually a good area to discuss.

My personal view is that crypto coins are a social contract between the develelopers and the users. The main branch of the coin (that has the brand) is the initial social contract (expectations) between the developers and the users.

If the users do not like something, they can then split and follow a new brand.

Example. Monero team in one year changes x in the code and hardfork happens. This is ok in my view because by using monero I agree to use this coin that is being developed by these developers. Of course there is a level of trust, if too many people disagree with the change then the coin will most likely be destroyed.

Let's not be naive. If the social contract with Monero was "the coin will never have any major changes even though competitors will most likely emerge" then I would not invest, and this is one of the reasons I wanted to move some money out of Bitcoin, because they are not reacting to the world at becoming complacent.

These currencies are not 100% trust less. You need to trust the market, the miners and the developers.

Yeah, it may work until project is small, with mostly controlled community.

Sorry but its just naive to think that you could communicate with users and services in world famous product. It's mostly not possible to convince people to update their software even if you have product users subscribed emails or followers or whatever. They just lazy or don't care. Not to mention cryptocurrencies, where you have no idea who are using your coin.

Imagine what would happen if significant part of network won't update it(by different reasons) at time of block X ?
 

I'm not decides which, all RS will be cut-off after reaching some level of deepness. And this won't hurt anonimity or mixins. Or, if you think different, could you mention concrete technical objection ?

Here you contradict with yourself - if you do hardfork in the way you mentioned(just hardforked from block X) you not giving a way for users to decide.
I mean if some of them really decide against - then you just fuckup hardfork with network split at the moment of block X.

This why bitcoin have careful protocol for hardforking, where you have to wait until network will update to needed version and really give users a way to decide.


I didn't say that hardfork is not an option at all.
The flame started from my words:
and I am deeply convinced of this.
So my point is that hardfork is risky and/or slow case, this should be used only in extra situations, where you have no other way to fix issue.
And i do not rule that we in BBR would be forced to make hardfork once a day. And probably more than once, i agree that nobody can foresee everything in advance.

Its a general Problem in IT, old software at some point doesn´t get any more support, the best examples are microsoft windows XP, old unmaintained linux kernels, older android builds or iphones. Users have to upgrade in a given timeframe if they want to expect everything to work, its not ideal but it is how it is.
For example Whatsapp stopped working on Iphone 3G, because they demand a newer IOS version which isn´t available for 3g.
Starcraft II stopped working on older MAC OSX version, because after an upgraded it required a newer OSX version which isn´t available on older Hardware.

If we think like that and always care about backwards compatibility we would be stuck in IT stone age.


I see it like DGA: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=624223.msg8048067#msg8048067
Yeah some users might have problems but does it justify not to enhance the software for the majority of users?


Is the code implemented in Boolberry from the start? You could point me to the implementation? If its not in the codebase yet aren´t you effectively the one who will decide it when you implement it?


Careful like this?
http://siliconangle.com/blog/2013/05/13/bitcoin-blockchain-hard-fork-coming-may-15th-final-warning/
https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-03-15-upgrade-deadline

Or the Dogecoin hardforks or the Darkcoin hardforks?

I agree it causes issues for users but can be done carefully planned.


I do agree also that of course not doing a hardfork is preferred.

What i do totally disagree with is this "this should be used only in extra situations, where you have no other way to fix issue."

I think, and its my personal opinion like everything i write, that a fork is justified whenever a sufficient improvement to the code or an economic flaw can be made.
Instead of just deciding to roll out feature XY at launch it should be done like Tromp does it for Cuckoo Cycle: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=707879.20
He has my utmost respect of how he handles his research.

I know your PoW has been also discussed in a seperate thread but somehow you didn´t get the right feedback, which isn´t your fault but still Cbuchner abused it to great extent.
You even thought about hardforking to cn.

For example your ALIAS feature, i totally disagree with how it works, as you can see here: http://boolberry.com/state.html
There are aliases registered for exchanges, for example this:

poloniex 1JVrM7Qg64Y5C3ANFegoCZjQokhkC5UtRQjddeuBDc7S7bjZWPpUCq8TBPbXxDVmHkWjugxf1Pk1CbZ D8gHQx4i4U22XywU
poloniex.com 1G467p3k4qGiqQCwFPDqSc46wzQZ9qnXB9JtLW9WD7T5UbnnT3imGsLeMnfjW5tsbBAibLbafcARU5e jW17mgYSd2Nxnq2W

Now, there´s no way to check if even one of them is really from Poloniex, which i doubt because miners control the whole alias infrastructure.
That opens doors for scammers litterally. You advertise it as a feedback but i see it as a drawback tbh.

It´s not the only thing where i see problems with some stuff you have build.

I also do think that Bitcoin (and we CN coins too) should do something against the Pool/Mining centralisation problem and it will prolly require a hardfork, but its a problem which definately needs to be solved sooner or later.
Or maybe Litecoin should have forked to counter the ASICs, they somehow lost their selling point with them, so at least for me its a "bug" which should have been fixed.

I can think of tons of improvements where a hardfork is simply justified.


a) We have 2 guis that are released and 1 gui in the works.
That makes a total of 3 guis, is 1 gui more real gui than 3 guis? Sorry i am not up2date with GUI-Math ;-)

Your GUI is insufficient for the broader mass.

I could argue now that we have more daemon and other stuff...but oh well...i better don´t start.


b) But see the alias for example, its flawed for me. I think such decisions should not be made by a single person. If you think a feature is good doesn´t mean its good in general.



The only reason a DB is not needed for BBR is the lack of transaction and the thus small blockchain.
But i argue, it IS needed to drive adoption and tooling for services around CN. I am still totally shocked that the CN codebase was released without a DB in mind.
The endusers don´t feel a difference, in your case at the moment, but every business or programmer interested in CN services or tooling will see a big difference.
Also our Daemon stuff is important for that, its not enough to please users with a simple GUI, the other side of the economy also needs to be supported.

Can't we all just get along tolerate each other?

Hardforks can work well or fail. Multiple examples for either case.

GUIs will be different.

BBR alias system is not perfect in current implementation.

Blockchain size can be handled different ways. We won't really know if one method is better for several years.

I will make mistakes.

We (the dev teams) are just arguing on the internet now. This arguing is a waste of our time. I would rather be working on my chosen cryptocurrencies than looking for flaws in some "oppenents" online post. Wouldn't you?

You are an hero Mike.

I love you too Mike!

LOL!

Would you still love me if I said I own more XMR than BBR?

lol... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States

Yes. Yes I would. *hugs*

Holy thread resurrection Batman!

Thanks, it allowed me to efficiently update my ignore list. :-)

 :-*