There is no need to have two BBR networks. This is very simple. Normal (standart client) use checkpoints, to speedup blockchain loading (every currency have it, including bitcoin). Under checkpoints some checks are skipped. This based on idea the users trust developers and their checkpoints.
But, if some "new user" don't want to use checkpoints(don't trust developers), and want to completely validate(mathematically) whole blockchain from genesis block, then he build hi own manual client(or provide some command line params, depends of implementation) and completely validate whole blockchain. In BBR can do simple the same just by taking this complete version of blockchain, and do this verification for every transaction.
In ~99.8% of blockchain-based cryptocurrencies you can verify the entire chain by: 1. Retrieving the entire chain from the p2p network, ensuring that you have the correct chain with the assumption that you are able to connect to at least one honest peer, 2. Verifying that no blocks have ever been changed by checking block and tx hashes, and 3. Verifying that chain of transactions from the genesis block is valid (with checkpoints disabled). Boolberry: 1. Can't do #1 because the chain doesn't exist on the p2p. You would have to use (i.e trust) a web site. 2. Can't do #2 because the tx hashes don't include signatures. 3. Can do #3 predicated on the assumption that nothing has gone wrong with #1 and #2 Certainly you can see a degree of trust has been added here (#1) and the chain of steps that is normally used for trustless verification is broken in at least two places (#1 and #2). As I have said before, I don't know that this is necessarily a bad trade off, but it is a different trade off. What is frustrating about it is not that Boolberry has decided to do something differently (experimentation and diversity and choices in the marketplace are great). It is that Boolberry aggressively portrays its changes unambiguously as "improvements" or "fixes" when they are actually trade-offs. This confuses people and causes them to then ask us why we are relying on an "unimproved" solution when in fact we have simply made different tradeoffs. A very similar argument could be made about XCN, except that XCN is much more explicit that it is making a trade-off in order to achieve certain goals, and doesn't run around saying "XCN fixes Bitcoin flaws." You have very tricky language smooth. Even when you'll decide to do the same with ring sigs, you'll find the nice way to explain this  And once again - you wrong about 1, 2, 3. Blockchain is a confirmation of transaction history, and in BBR you can't change transaction history like i any other currency. Ring signatures has no sense after hundreds of confirmations, esspecially under checkpoins. Zoidberg |
|
|
|
Needs much cleanup (says a German). Christian Hey Christian, how you doing ?! Killed some interesting coins during last months ?  Zoidberg |
|
|
|
Not true, again.
You can do it for BBR as well, using this full version of blockchain you can mathematically prove that all transactions followed network rules.
The worse that we already discussed it with smooth and he knows that he is wrong here.
Zoidberg
ps: i wondering, when you guys finally stop confuse people about my project ?! Zoidberg - can you elaborate? You're saying that you can't prove it as a client with a pruned blockchain - but you CAN prove it with a full blockchain. Are there two different networks running where you can download the full blockchain if you want - or the pruned one if you want? I'm more interested in truth than pissing contests .... There is no need to have two BBR networks. This is very simple. Normal (standart client) use checkpoints, to speedup blockchain loading (every currency have it, including bitcoin). Under checkpoints some checks are skipped. This based on idea the users trust developers and their checkpoints. But, if some "new user" don't want to use checkpoints(don't trust developers), and want to completely validate(mathematically) whole blockchain from genesis block, then he build hi own manual client(or provide some command line params, depends of implementation) and completely validate whole blockchain. In BBR can do simple the same just by taking this complete version of blockchain, and do this verification for every transaction. |
|
|
|
No, you modified some of the signatures there. In the original version they were different. (I know you didn't, but you can't prove it.) changed one valid signautre to another valid signature? lol Zoidberg |
|
|
|
BBR made the decision to prune ring signatures. Which if I understand correctly makes it impossible to mathematically prove previous transactions were actually anonymous without the code base (or something along these lines). I 100% want to figure out how to make the blockchain smaller per transaction - but I feel like being conservative about keeping proof of anonymity is a decision that bodes well for the future of the coin.
What it does is make it impossible for a new user to verify that the chain followed the rules at the beginning. You and I know (or at least we reasonably believe) that there wasn't any funny business in BBR at the beginning because we were around before during and after the trimming, but a new user starting a node has no way to establish that at all other than trusting you and me or someone like us to tell them that we were around and everything is okay. That is unlike Bitcoin or Monero where you as a new user, on your own, can literally check every single transaction back to the genesis block and don't need to trust anyone to tell you they all followed the rules. I think the issue is somewhat worse with an anonymous coin than Bitcoin because rule violations can be hidden in the anonymity (if someone has a million extra coins, you couldn't see that or prove it). Nevertheless it isn't is devastating flaw or anything, just a somewhat higher level of external trust required than other coins (with the offsetting benefit of a smaller chain). What it does is make it impossible for a new user to verify that the chain followed the rules at the beginning. It's not true.
I just put non-pruned version of boolberry blockchain: http://boolberry.com/downloads.html#blockchain_proof, special for you, because you like to confuse people with speculations about this stuff.
That is unlike Bitcoin or Monero where you as a new user, on your own, can literally check every single transaction back to the genesis block and don't need to trust anyone to tell you they all followed the rules. Not true, again.
You can do it for BBR as well, using this full version of blockchain you can mathematically prove that all transactions followed network rules.
The worse that we already discussed it with smooth and he knows that he is wrong here.
Zoidberg
ps: i wondering, when you guys finally stop confuse people about my project ?!
|
|
|
|
Hi, It was sent from Bter, do they need to rebuild their wallet file?
Thanks,
This transaction didn't actually included into blockchain, so money is not transferred. They need to send money to you again. May be they use old daemon (but i doubt), anyway, ask them to resend money since transaction cb396f7c230b45fb91b314c46daab5b0db6ebce973c941d690831719b9d080c2 wasn't confirmed by network. Also let them know if they need help from me - they welcome. Zoidberg |
|
|
|
Hey,
Thanks for your help, sorry what is the view key? Are there no block chain explorers for BBR that are current?
ID for transaction was = ...
You should tell Bittrex the Transaction ID and the exact amount ASAP. If it is not crediting to your account there you probably didn't send the transaction with the correct payment ID (needed to discern between depositors because each wallet only has one address). There are no current blockchain explorers for BBR. But that wouldn't matter anyway: transactions are anonymous without the viewkey. Bittrex has the viewkey for their address, and Bter has the viewkey for their address. With one of those one could theoretically prove that the transaction was sent to Bter. edit: With a block explorer you could determine the transaction was sent but not where it was sent or the amount. Is there a block explorer that could tell me it has sent as that would be helpful, getting very concerned about these not showing up!!!!!! did you use a payment id? Hey, Yep, thanks, ID for transaction was = cb396f7c230b45fb91b314c46daab5b0db6ebce973c941d690831719b9d080c2 your transaction wasn't sent.. Thanks Super, how do you tell that? I will send you some bbr for assistance if I can get it back!!!! |
|
|
|
Zoidberg,
Just started donating my GPU to your address on cncoin.farm. I plan on leaving it there for a few weeks at least. It's doing around 1.8-2.0mh so it's not a whole lot but hopefully it helps a bit. Thanks for your hard work.
Thanks man! Zoidberg! |
|
|
|
Chainradar is working on fixing their BBR block explorer as well. Can you fix BBR? It has been stuck at block 1491 for a while.
Fixing it now, sorry for not noticing your post earlier. Great to hear that! btw feedback dialog on website seems to be not working Let me know if i can help them! Zoidberg |
|
|
|
seems this coin is dying
fuck off the coin is fine. Zoidberg You know, sometimes you come off a little harsh... It was friendly " fuckoff" But seriously, i suddenly felt that i must to write something finally, in response to that post..., few seconds i was wondering what i want to write... what i can write... a long senseless post.... or some justifications...hm.... Then i looked deeper into my soul and found out this words, that shortly expressed my feelings and thoughts. And i won't apologize for that. Zoidberg |
|
|
|
seems this coin is dying
fuck off the coin is fine. Zoidberg |
|
|
|
nice
basic question, if a ring signature transaction on supernet is made, does supernet use boolberries from their 10% stake? isn't 10% a bit low or will berries also be bought by supernet?
This questions must to be addressed to James i guess. Zoiderg |
|
|
|
excited how supernet integration will do, james has been absent in this thread for a while..
James have contacted me few days ago about API, during this days we negotiated details, and now i'm working on API implementation. Zoidberg |
|
|
|
Unfortunaly both chaninradar and minergate broken.
I've contacted both - no unswer yet, let's see if they answer on monday.
Zoidberg
Any idea why they're both broke in what looks like the same way? Probably they have very old daemon version in backend. |
|
|
|
Unfortunaly both chaninradar and minergate broken. I've contacted both - no unswer yet, let's see if they answer on monday. Zoidberg |
|
|
|
and they based project on BBR but didn't mention it in OP, lol |
|
|
|
Anyone knows someone from chainradar or minergate ? I was tryied to contact them but without luck. Seems that both blockexplorer is broken  Zoidberg |
|
|
|
.....
5000 BBR sent to @zoidberg
Transaction id: 05cdc073c12297308f07955594ef2d6f6a10e29002654ad794b0de09ff2caefb
Very impressive! Seems that you biggest donator for BBR now. Thank you very much! I think it's time to build new website for project Zoidberg! Just put it to good use. A website update would definately qualify. The current one is however quite functional. Would you be using donation funds to pay someone? We don't want you distracted from working on Boolberry.  I asked Bitcrea to take care about this, we talked today about rised funds and what will be the best way to use it for. He gonna draw some design and we ask webdev to make website. (current version of website is completely handmade by me, and i'm dilettante in web development, that's why it's terribe). But if you have some thoghts about it - feel free to share it (here or in PM, up to you). Zoidberg |
|
|
|
James, James - why have you forsaken us?
James have a lot of work with his projects i guess. He said that he working on release that is coming soon - looking forward to see it! Zoidberg |
|
|
|
.....
5000 BBR sent to @zoidberg
Transaction id: 05cdc073c12297308f07955594ef2d6f6a10e29002654ad794b0de09ff2caefb
Very impressive! Seems that you biggest donator for BBR now. Thank you very much! I think it's time to build new website for project Zoidberg! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
