|
We definately need to list all project donators.
I started list in OP, please everyone who was donated - don't hesitate to PM me and remind when have you did some donations.
Zoidberg
|
|
|
|
Opened today @zoidberg wallet for some debugging, and findout a lot of nice tiny transfers. I guess this is pools payout donations.
Thank you very much whoever you are 
btw: got back to development, working on new release.
Zoidberg
Check your wallet again. I just sent you a nice donation. Looking forward to the new release. Wow! It was really nice donation! Thank you for your 2000BBR! Just sent it + 500 from me to jahrsg( scruffy scruffington) for his last commits on GUI. Zoidberg |
|
|
|
Opened today @zoidberg wallet for some debugging, and findout a lot of nice tiny transfers. I guess this is pools payout donations.
Thank you very much whoever you are
btw: got back to development, working on new release.
Zoidberg
|
|
|
|
I'm disappoint he still with supernet.
why do you say that? Just my opinion on nxt and stuff. nxt != James & nxt != SuperNet James do projects that run on nxt platform as i understand it. btw: why you don't give a chances to SuperNet ? |
|
|
|
Why this dump? What happened  Looks like another round of rage dumping following "the announcement" which was reneging the plans originally planned for the announcement  My guess is that CZ backed out of the whole SuperNET idea? which is what the entire CN community wanted (XMR etc). So we have people with a lot of money who wanted BBR to do things certain way (XMR wanted it to just go away/die and not side with the whole James saga, SuperNET guys wanted it to be Super Duper etc etc) and CZ said no to everyone. .... The descision is related only with fundrising. Boolberry is opened for any interesting projects/services, and if SuperNet is really about technology and interested in integration - than i would be happy to provide integration support. Few days ago i told to James once again that his project could be interesting but there is no technical documentation that allow to grasp his ideas, and i still not sure what kind of challenge is the SupperNet. So it's up to James. Zoidberg |
|
|
|
Don't want to interract discussion, but, if someone was care what was happened couple of hours ago with transactions:
it was Clintar and me makeing some stress test with transaction pools + solving some mining pools's wallet problem.
Zoidberg
|
|
|
|
CZ, could you give us a statement what exactly happened? Is windjc still involved with the marketing?
windjc is disagree with my descision. He has his own reasonable arguments that i respect. Due to this issues he steped back from marketing now, anyway i'm thankful for his help. Zoidberg |
|
|
|
|
Dear friends!
I'm very sorry that made you wait a the "announcment".
First of all I want to say that I was very excited to see how the Boolberry (BBR) community resisted rebranding. I didn’t post anything about it, but I’m actually very impressed. I believe this process of community involvement made our brand stronger than ever. I want to say a big thank you for that!
During the last 6 months since Boolberry started, we have been working hard trying to make BBR usable and reliable, appealing and secure(coded "like there is no tomorrow" (c) by fluffypony). It’s been hard work with lots of fun and lots of stress, but we survived tough times and we are strong. We now have a working unique stable crypto-currency, with a thriving and growing community.
According to current rate of BBR, 1% donation is as low as 750$ per month, it certainly does not look like a budget for an IT project (it’s not even enough for monthly survival of one person). All income was spent on project needs, shared with team, some part spent on bounties, on servers rent, etc.
Last week I spent many hours having discussions with a couple of investors, people who were ready to invest in a project where i’m involved as a core developer. We discussed different options, and you probably won’t be surprised to learn that investors are interested in profits first and foremost. There were various suggested options, including things that required radical changes or even launching a completely new project. Well, it certainly didn’t sound good for Boolberry’s potential future success.
We was tried during last days to workout some acceptable approach for fundrising, but i finally rejected it, due to my own understanding of it and my own standarts, so this is completely my responsibility.
We planed different announce, but now announce is just about it.
That means that we'll keep looking for some way to get funds, and i'll keep active developmet of the project.
Zoidberg
|
|
|
|
......
I didn't say change a key image after the fact. I said that you can't independently verify that it is valid once the ring sigs are gone. You are trusting that at some time in the past a consistent ring sig and key image ever existed. After trimming you can only see the key image, not the rest. And without the rest you can't verify its validity, only its uniqueness (VER step vs. LNK step in the white paper). I see your point, but disagree with you. Imo there is no need to keep this RS in blockchain, if it covered by checkpoints, esspecially because RS is not validating under check points. Evidense may be available from developers, in case of someone do not trust dev's checkpoints, but as i said there is no reason of burdening with that crap whole cryptocurrency network. Zoidberg |
|
|
|
Hello guys!
Have a problem with bbr-win-x64-v0.3.0.41(abcdeab)-installer.exe.
It cant create new wallet after install the program.
Filed to genetrate wallet: failed to save file.... *.bbr.keys
in any folder..
What can i do?
Pls help!
Also, can i mine bbr directly to exchange (from pool)? How i can do these?
Thanks!
Hi SectorZero! Can you send me log files? (located in the same folder as exacutable) Are you sure that u use allowed file name symbols and have write privileges? Zoidberg |
|
|
|
Guys, announce will be tomorrow, sorry that you had to wait, it's completely my fault.
See you tomorrow!
Zoidberg
Tomorrow meaning Monday? Tomorrow means about 12-20 hours from now. |
|
|
|
I downloaded and installed bbr-win-x64-v0.3.0.41(abcdeab)-installer.exe. The market price feature doesn't work ("last price: unable to receive market data").
Does anyone else have this issue?
yes, couple of people have this issue, on some machines for some reason qt can't fetch this rquests. It's opened bug. Zoidberg |
|
|
|
|
Guys, announce will be tomorrow, sorry that you had to wait, it's completely my fault.
See you tomorrow!
Zoidberg
|
|
|
|
Please provide block the download, for a long time did not open, can not be updated
What version do you use ? |
|
|
|
Smooth, RS have absolutely no relation with double spending protection, so i have no idea why you wrote all that. Double spend protection in CN implemented in different way, and this keep works without RS. Want to argue with that ?  Somewhat. You are referring to key images. But key images are only validated with respect to a ring signature. Otherwise, I can come up with whatever (unique) key image I want and how would you know it isn't valid? Really ? And how could you change key image without changeing tx id ? Because transactions are fixed in blockchain with every data in it, including keyimages, but except ring signatures. In BBR. |
|
|
|
Anxiously awaiting announcement. Any hour now would be fine...  I'm sorry for little delay, but we still finalizing some details... almost done |
|
|
|
Again, see edit above.
Imagine that a code bug exists where coins can be double spent in ring sigs, creating coins out of thin air. The developer realizes this, exploits it secretly, and then waits to see if anyone notices. He pushes out a checkpoint that throws away the old ring sigs and sometime later the bug is fixed.
Possibly it is discovered by someone who has an archived version of the chain, but even then, it can't even be independently verified that their claimed version of the chain is the correct one. Maybe someone else comes up with a different one. There are no hashes to refute this.
It is far better to retain the ability but not the requirement to independently verify the chain, and retain the chain somewhere in a trustless decentralized network.
Even committing a hash of the early chain (full hash including, not excluding, ring sigs) when you trim it would be somewhat better, but as far as I know is not being done.
The trust model of the BBR ring sig trimming -- within the chain itself and not relying on external sources -- is simply that everything is okay below the checkpoint because the developer said so and put a checkpoint there.
BTW, one last comment on this. I'm not even saying the BBR trimming is a bad idea. I see a lot of merit in it. I'm just saying that it involves changing the trust model, and is not unequivocally a good idea. It is a trade off. Nor do I agree that the only choice is between the current BBR implementation and the current Monero implementation.
Smooth, RS have absolutely no relation with double spending protection, so i have no idea why you wrote all that. Double spend protection in CN implemented in different way, and this keep works without RS. Want to argue with that ? |
|
|
|
.....
It isn't possible to independently verify the chain. This significantly elevates the trust model for checkpoints from choosing among valid chains to trusting that the chain below the checkpoint was valid before being trimmed. Again, tradeoffs....
It is possible but unreasonable because PoW prooves tx history anyway, with relation from current block till genesis. Possible because i have "not pruned" backup, so if i share it - it will be a natural prove. Isn't it ? |
|
|
|
.....
Tacotime who is very experienced and respected in the community, has been involved with many coins, and is a very serious cryptocoin developer himself (MC2), is adamantly opposed to the ring signature trimming for example.
.....
Tacotime was also criticized bbr aliases idea. Now you implemented aliases in Monero  Anyway, can you say at least one real argument against removing RS under checkpoints ? Zoidberg |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
