Alright let's do this:
1 vote: h3 (Morecoin Freeman)
1 vote: h3 (Morecoin Freeman) 1 vote O-O: (languagehasmeaning) |
|
|
|
Please to stay on the tail emission topic |
|
|
|
I think that it is something that should be thought about well in advance, because if changes need to be made then it affects the economics greatly and could cause a huge rift in the community of a cryptocurrency- a large enough rift that could kill it. So, I think IF there is an issue that it is better to fix it sooner rather than later.
I think we all agree on this point. Monero was wise to make this decision early. Based on the feedback I have received so far I think Boolberry should be able to gain community support for this as well. As of today just over 1/3 of (pre-tail) Boolberry has been emitted: 6,243,478/18,446,744 |
|
|
|
I think Monero adopting Boolberry's best features is the biggest threat to it.
Of course I want Boolberry to succeed but I also support Monero. We are friendly communities. Monero does not seem to be upset that we are discussing implementing their idea (tail emission) so we should not be upset if they later implement some version of pruning (likely to be different than Boolberry) or that they are also moving to 2 minute blocks. Open source development always benefits other development projects. Should Boolberry modify its LevelDB plans due to the Monero success with LMDB? I don't know. https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry/tree/dbThis is all just an experiment. Lets make Boolberry the best we can and build an economy around it rather than worry about which coin is implementing ideas developed by another. Monero and Boolberry will never be the same. I am certain that when the official Monero GUI is released it will be much different (with many new features) and not based on the current Boolberry GUI. If the community agrees that we should implement tail emission I hope that we make it different than the tail emission designed by Monero. |
|
|
|
I do not think that anyone can be certain that even a tail emission will be sufficient to solve this problem. For tail emissions (or finite) cryptocurrencies to work, a cryptocurrency would have to be a great success. I don't believe cryptocurrencies that aren't a great success can work at all. They're both insecure and useless. So in designing, you might as well design with the assumption of great success because other possibilities don't matter. Meh, if I have to choose in between: A. An 80% chance to make a small but above average income by running a mom and pop business or B. A 20% chance to make large corporation that is highly successful and earns millions, or nothing if the corporation is not highly successful. I am a bit of a nit, but I am going to choose option A- especially if option B is an alternative cryptocurrency going against highly network effected super powers such as Bitcoin and Litecoin. Hell, I can name approximately 10 coins with greater network effects than Monero (I could name exponentially more for Boolberry.) With those odds I'm taking option A all day long... You are conservative and are probably not alone in that view. If taking a lie detector test, I don't think anyone here would claim to think Boolberry has a greater chance of commercial success than Monero. The current market cap of each coin reflects that: 14,323 BTC for Monero 153 BTC for Boolberry http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero/http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/boolberry/Monero is valued at over 93 times that of Boolberry today. Putting aside the risk/reward analysis there are non speculative reasons to care about Boolberry. Boolberry and Aeon also provide value as a testbed for potential features that may one day be implemented into Monero (such as pruning). If there is a new promising but "unproven" feature that could cause catastrophic loss if a flaw is found would there be less economic loss if that happened in Boolberry or Monero? Boolberry is definitely a useful experiment. Only time will tells what happens. Until then all we can do is our best. |
|
|
|
I do not think that anyone can be certain that even a tail emission will be sufficient to solve this problem. For tail emissions (or finite) cryptocurrencies to work, a cryptocurrency would have to be a great success. I don't believe cryptocurrencies that aren't a great success can work at all. They're both insecure and useless. So in designing, you might as well design with the assumption of great success because other possibilities don't matter. Good point smooth. None of this will matter at all if Boolberry is not a success. In other words, the stars will need to align for any finite (or a tail emission) be able to pay for a secure enough blockchain after their emission rate diminishes greatly.
Your opinion is welcome here even if you are not a Boolberry stakeholder. Can I assume from your statement that in addition to favoring a tail emission you think that a relatively "high" tail emission (whatever "high" means) would be a good idea? |
|
|
|
Nc5
This is a complicated position but I also think Bd5 or Nf6 is probably the best move. The problem with Nc5 is that the black king can only defend it from two squares (c6 and d6) meaning white can capture f7 with with check: 49.Nc4+ Kc6 50.Ne5+ Kd6 51.Nxf7+ Kc6 52.Bc4 protecting b3 and planning 53.Ne5+ or 53.Nd8+ I like that Hueristic thought independently. Too often in this game it seems that many people just vote for whatever move is suggested first or most popular. I will vote for Nf6 for now not because it is necessarily better than Bd5 but to encourage people to consider multiple options before making a decision in this position. I am not saying a unanimous decision is always a bad thing because often it is not. However in this position we could use more debate. Bd5 2 votes: (LucyLovesCrypto, XMRpromotions) Nc5 1 vote: (Hueristic) Nf6 1 vote: (languagehasmeaning) |
|
|
|
1. This account "louisdor" account is very likely to be "crypto_zoidberg" (based on post history and pattern of logging in often without posting)
Good thinking. Looks like there may be more activity soon: We hope that Alpha will be available in january.
We want to do everything really good.
I hope so but that is another CryptoNote (PoS) project even if some of his ideas for it may ultimately benefit Boolberry. Now is the time to decide the Boolberry tail emission issue no matter what happens with louisdor. |
|
|
|
Where is Dev?  Last Active: 2015-12-04, 16:29:40 Boolberry will go on with or without crypto_zoidberg Two points 1. This account "louisdor" is very likely to be "crypto_zoidberg" Last Active: 2016-1-18, 09:01:06 2. This thread is about making a relatively simple change (adding tail emission) that many people could implement fairly easily. Boolberry has had a working GUI and pruning implementation for well over a year already and can can survive without crypto_zoidberg. If he does not return we can fork away the developer bounty and move to a donation system similar to Monero to fund new developers to replace him. |
|
|
|
Where is Dev? Last Active: 2015-12-04, 16:29:40 Boolberry will go on with or without crypto_zoidberg Two points 1. This account "louisdor" is very likely to be "crypto_zoidberg" Last Active: 2016-1-18, 09:01:06 2. This thread is about making a relatively simple change (adding tail emission) that many people could implement fairly easily. Boolberry has had a working GUI and pruning implementation for well over a year already and can can survive without crypto_zoidberg. If he does not return we can fork away the developer bounty and move to a donation system similar to Monero to fund new developers to replace him. |
|
|
|
Where do you gents buy your Aeon?
If you also want the option to buy Aeon on Shapeshift you might want to contact them now to show support of the idea I have decided to help both you and Boolberry because your communities have been supportive of Monero and have helped to advance CryptoNote innovation. If Shapeshift decides to add more CryptoNote coins I believe AEON and BBR should be next https://twitter.com/XMRpromotions/status/689328498893144064I will also send Shapeshift a follow up email |
|
|
|
http://livestream.com/chess/tatasteelchess/videos/109876054Post game analysis with Hou Yifan and Yasser Seirawan. I like her a lot, also her chess, but in this game Navara had asked for it. She executed it nicely, though. If i should emphasize one game out of the first four rounds it would probably be the epic struggle Navara-Giri with this very nice rook sacrifice. Do we know if our opponent is in Gibraltar or Wijk currently? I like her too and hope she continues to get more chances to play in tournaments as strong as this one. Her performance so far proves she deserves it. I have seen a few guesses in the thread about who OP might be but I don't think anyone knows for sure. |
|
|
|
I started a thread for us to discuss the idea of adding tail emission to Boolberry. Please come vote on whether or not you think it is a good idea. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1333906.msg13610183#msg13610183Not included in this poll but something we should also think about is if we want o remove the developer bounty (unless Crypto Zoidberg becomes active again soon and convinces us why we should keep it). - Developer Bounty: Up to 1% (Controlled by miner's votes)
This is what the Monero tail emission will look like (offering continued incentives for miners to protect the network in addition to transaction fees).  Boolberry could implement something very similar although it will take us twice as long to reach the "tail" |
|
|
|
Monero has a tail emission designed to protect against lack of incentives to secure the network. Here is an excerpt from a good post explaining the reasoning for this: It at this point where we see the critical importance of a tail emission since if Rbase = 0 this attack has zero cost and the tragedy of the commons actually occurs. This is the critical difference between those Cryptonote coins that have a tail emission, and have solved the problem, such as Monero and those that do not, and will in a matter of time become vulnerable, such as Bytecoin.
[2] Initial number of atomic units is M = 2 64 - 1. However, once the block reward reaches 0.3 XMR (sometime in 2022) that is treated as the minimum subsidy, which means that Monero's total emission will forever increase by ~157783.68 XMR annually. [3] Uses a recurrence relation. Block reward = (M - A) * 2 -20 * 10 -12, where A = current circulation. Roughly 86% mined in 4 years (see graph). At the time of the Monero hard fork in March (when they will switch from 60 second blocks to 120 second blocks like Boolberry has now) the tail emission schedule will be adjusted accordingly. Aeon also appears to have plans to include a tail emission: Okay let's consider this an official proposal then, open for comments: Once the base reward declines below 0.3/minute, then reward will switch to inflationary at a target rate of 0.8888888....%/year (actual rate may deviate slightly in practice due to variations in block rate, block reward penalty, rounding, etc.) This is what the Monero tail emission will look like (offering continued incentives for miners to protect the network in addition to transaction fees). Boolberry could implement something very similar although it will take us twice as long to reach the "tail" due to our slower emission schedule. |
|
|
|
Ke7 : 2 Votes (boolberry, tifozi)
Ke7 : 3 Votes (boolberry, tifozi, languagehasmeaning) |
|
|
|
Bg5 : 1 Vote (tifozi)
Bg5 : 2 Votes (tifozi, languagehasmeaning) |
|
|
|
My next move also Kf8
Kf8 : 4 votes (tschukki, Morecoin Freeman, tifozi, marcus1986)
Be4 : 1 vote (carlison)
Kf8 : 5 votes (tschukki, Morecoin Freeman, tifozi, marcus1986, boolberry) Be4 : 1 vote (carlison) Kf8 : 6 votes (tschukki, Morecoin Freeman, tifozi, marcus1986, boolberry, languagehasmeaning) Be4 : 1 vote (carlison) |
|
|
|
Welcome to the club. Be6 would have lost the game as suggested in Post 1428Kf8 : 3 votes (tschukki, Morecoin Freeman,tifozi) Be4 : 1 vote (carlison) Thank you. ...Be6 seems to be losing, but your post is far from proving that it does. The position had me calculating for minutes and finally made me come to this forum via OPs Twitter account. Things are not that easy. Instead of your 45...Bc2 running into 47.Bd3+- at least two alternatives should be checked to make sure. 45...Be6 was my main move (to stop the a pawn via ...Bd5 once we have the white knight forced to a4), 45...Ne4+ looks interesting as well, there is some counterplay for us in this line. Both moves may lose in the end (im not entirely sure), but they pose more problems to black than just allowing 47.Bd3 and game over. You both are likely correct. Be6 probably would have lost but there are more lines that looked interesting. I calculated some but not all of them to a conclusive result. For example I also thought 43.Nb6 Be6 44.a5 Bxb3 45.Bxa6 Ne4+ looked promising because after 46.Kg2 Bd1 seems sufficient to hold the draw (I could list a few variations but they became irrelevant when I found 46.Ke3 instead). White wins easily instead with 46.Ke3 Nxg3 47.Bc8 Bd1 48.a6 b3 49.Na4 (with the deadly threat of Bb7, a7, a8) Be2 (inducing a7 to prevent Bb7 next move) 50.a7 Bf3 51.Bxg4 and black will lose a piece in order to prevent white from queening. I also looked at 45.Bxa6 Bd1 and believe that to be winning for white after the straightforward 46.Bb7 b3 47.Na4 Ne8 48.a6 Nc7 49.a7 Bf3 50.Bxf3 gxf3 51.Kxf3 I did not spend much time with 45.Bxa6 Be6 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
