........
Is your target market only programmers? 99% of the people in the world don't know what 'bool' means. You flunk Marketing 101.
99.999% also have no idea what is monero, since it is only about 2000 people know esperanto  . |
|
|
|
.........
4. My cursory impression is it appears that Boolberry is not garnishing the same level of professionalism in the community and focus. My cursory impression is Zoidberg needs to be able to convince someone of smooth's caliber to lead the public side of Boolberry's face and also organize about adding developers, e.g. cryptanalysis of the PoW, etc..
My interpretations and gut instinct could be wrong, and I am open to be pointed to a link to that changes my mind.
Note the bitmonero launch was horrible. So they've come a long way in a short time. Boolberry could too if Zoidberg is serious about delegation.
...........
If your technical capabilities are superior, it will be self-evident in your well organized PR materials, e.g. whitepaper, devs in your public threads, etc..
You are lashing out at Monero's success in community organization, because you focused on coding. Realize there is another stage after coding where you release and need community.
I agree with you here. And this is the main reason why we are looking for partnership/investment now. We have technical ideas and ability to improve project(colored coins, multisig transactions etc), and we are looking for a credible person with marketing/PR experience. |
|
|
|
Real world is not only your's problem  So just curious how you going to solve this issue ?... bitcoin is also in more than real world and have blockchain much bigger than any CN coin(at least at that moment ). And it still load's it from network. So you see the problem in slow protocol ? Or somewhere else ? Learn to use github before you guys badmouth monero https://github.com/rfree2monero/bitmonero/commits/dev-rfreeIts also mentioned in the weekly missives. So yeah, we are currently rewriting that code and its a priority. Dear Othe, learn that world does not revolve around Monero and don't be so aggressive. I just don't read your weekly missives, forgive me that |
|
|
|
What dga is saying is spot on as usual, what zoidberg says about boolberry being the technically stronger coin is absolutely correct and how anyone can try and pretend otherwise is beyond me. Maybe not superior in flowery talk and penning eccentricities like boolberry bulletins, not superior with creating as many threads- the majority of this thread is monero promo and back and forth discussion specifically around monero which seems to have become a synonym for cryptonote.. maybe not superior in convincing the unwashed masses it's is indeed the only thing worth investing in aside from bitcoin, . whilst everything else is a cheap clone or shitcoin, or in terms of bitcointalk allstar celeb endorsement and greasing up the palms of exchanges though
But this is your opinion. It's not spot on that BBR is the technically stronger coin, this is not "absolutely correct". The pow change is questionable and the pruning is linear pruning, it's a fixed space saving per block, nothing that will reduce the chain like true transaction pruning does. You have bought into Zoid's marketing hype. Like I have said many times, this is the Litecoin fiasco all over again. I remember when I was told by many experts that Litecoin was faster [1], more secure, safer, technically superior to Bitcoin because it's Bitcoin plus awesome sauce on top. I never bought into the Litecoin hype back then and I'm not falling for it today. All of the BBR arguments sound like the same fluff Litecoin supporters shouted back then. [1] And that apparently was enough reason to hail a Litecoin take over where many people started panic buying Litecoins because Bitcoin now was on its way out. What a joke. I mostly agree with you about Litecoin... but from your own point of view, isn't Monero is just a Litecoin ? Because it was just a copypaste fork of bytecoin, even with questionable changing block time... (still have no idea why tft did that). And now many experts says that Monero is better. BBR was made because i realized potential problems of CN, and i'm trying to solve it. Research took some time, and this is my main fault i guess - i spent time for real improments instead of just launch copypaste fork. And now i really surprised - why you call BBR LiteCoin ? |
|
|
|
Monero and others have to provide a link for downloading blockchain file instead of loading this from network cloud, tha's actually a real centralization.
Two minor technical corrections: 1. The centralization aspect of this will likely be removed at some point, as done by bitcoin. The static blockchain will still be verified (once). I guess if it will still be verified (once) - you will still meet the same problem - long PoW check... or did i miss something ? You are correct, but we consider the verification time acceptable for installing a full node at this time. There are 1440 blocks per day. At 50 blocks/sec per core that is less than 30 seconds per day single threaded. A year of blockchain is 3 hours. If multithreaded on a quad core this will be under an hour. In practice I doubt that p2p downloads are that fast now anyway. I guess this numbers is for powerfull cpu. Laptop's users gonna have much slower hash calculation time. Also, with increasing usage of the network, (constant) PoW will become a smaller portion of block verification time anyway. We may switch to a faster or different PoW at some point, who knows. But we don't see an urgent need for it.
or at least change block interval to 2 minutes 2. The primary reason for a static blockchain download is not PoW verification, it is to reduce load on the p2p. Relatively few p2p nodes are accessible for incoming connections, so the ones that are get hammered very hard by new nodes connecting and downloading the block chain. Periods of rapid adoption are the worst, because there are so many new users downloading the block chain. We encourage (and spend money to host) the static downloads to reduce the load on existing nodes. High load in turn leads to fewer people being willing to operate accessible nodes, which makes matters even worse on the ones who do.
With all respect to you smooth, I doubt that it's true. Based onmy knowlage of protocol, i can say that clients while downloading the blockchain automatically switch to some other nodes if it's do response faster. Sorry but you are mistaken. You are confusing a local problem with a global problem. They might switch to another node, but then the other node just gets overloaded. We have real world experience with a rapidly growing network and in practice almost every accessible node gets overloaded (or at least heavily loaded) with chain download traffic. And that is even with some users downloading the static chain, though at the time we were not encouraging it as strongly. Exponential growth rate of the network will slow down at some point and this will cease to be an issue (new users as a fraction of existing nodes will be smaller). But it is a real issue if the growth rate is high. Real world is not only your's problem So just curious how you going to solve this issue ?... bitcoin is also in more than real world and have blockchain much bigger than any CN coin(at least at that moment ). And it still load's it from network. So you see the problem in slow protocol ? Or somewhere else ? |
|
|
|
Monero and others have to provide a link for downloading blockchain file instead of loading this from network cloud, tha's actually a real centralization.
Two minor technical corrections: 1. The centralization aspect of this will likely be removed at some point, as done by bitcoin. The static blockchain will still be verified (once). I guess if it will still be verified (once) - you will still meet the same problem - long PoW check... or did i miss something ? 2. The primary reason for a static blockchain download is not PoW verification, it is to reduce load on the p2p. Relatively few p2p nodes are accessible for incoming connections, so the ones that are get hammered very hard by new nodes connecting and downloading the block chain. Periods of rapid adoption are the worst, because there are so many new users downloading the block chain. We encourage (and spend money to host) the static downloads to reduce the load on existing nodes. High load in turn leads to fewer people being willing to operate accessible nodes, which makes matters even worse on the ones who do.
With all respect to you smooth, I doubt that it's true. Based on my knowlage of protocol, i can say that clients while downloading the blockchain automatically switch to some other nodes if it's do response faster. So even if you have few overloaded nodes than newcomers will switch to another nodes that have faster response. You can see this in src\currency_protocol\currency_protocol_handler.inl: int t_currency_protocol_handler<t_core>::handle_response_get_objects(int command, NOTIFY_RESPONSE_GET_OBJECTS::request& arg, currency_connection_context& context) Close to this line: //to avoid concurrency in core between connections, suspend connections which delivered block later then first one But. Even it is true and you really faced that some nodes was overloaded - the hosted blockchain is still centralized and still bad solution. I would prefer to improve protocol to have spread bandwith over the nodes. Just my opinion. As dev to dev. |
|
|
|
.... BoolberryIn case the coherence of my upthread posts was lost on the reader, my initial enthusiasm about Boolberry was quickly muted when I realized they claim pruning which I (and apparently Monero devs) think is impossible. And their PoW hashing algorithm seems to lack entropy as I think about it more, thus is perhaps gameable (probably but I don't want to publicly assert 'probably' until I can elucidate how). The marketing and product strategy seems to also not be thought out. Thus any initial enthusiam about the quality of the developer has waned for me (although it is not outside the realm of possibility that he is really talented and was just being careless but won't do it again-- not likely). I was readed the history and just curious, how people could make such conclusions without even understanding technology and what have done with that... ? This is sad to read this. The only thing that was actually evaluated is the project name i guess. |
|
|
|
At first - thank you for your interest to our poject. Hello Zoidberg. I apologize I thought you were attempting to prune the blockchain of transaction records which are spent— which both I and at least fluffpony think is impossible.
Now I see the details of your solution, which is discarding the ring signature proofs bloat, but retaining all transaction history. This indeed will work fine.
However, this is not pruning the blockchain, rather is just a constant size reduction in the bloat, thus it still won't scale to Visa scale because even Bitcoin wouldn't scale to Visa scale without pruning transaction history (or implementing the mini blockchain which also discards transaction history more efficiently).
I agree with you - it is not pruning transactions, and we newer claimed that we do it (This is strange that Monero devs was not explained this to you since they said that they closely examined all Boolberry features. ) But there was still possible to reduce a bigger part of transaction's body - and i did that, since it was best that i could do with CryptoNote blockchain bloat. I will update my upthread summary of top anonymity coins to note your advantage. But note your advantage doesn't really solve the scaling problem of one-time ring signatures.
When I said my enthusiam waned, I didn't mean to imply that you are not a capable programmer, because obviously you are. I meant that you are picking features to work out which don't really achieve the necessary level of functionality to unequivocally pull out in front of the rest of the coins. But I don't fault you for this, because most everyone else can't figure it out either. It is just that you are up against apparently a significant team of devs with Monero. I am not saying you couldn't pull a radical innovation out of your hat— anything is possible.
Boolberry is not perfect, sure. Every coin have practical problems. But this is obviously that our project is technically stronger than any other CN coin, despite "significant team of devs with Monero". (nothing personal - i still like a few pretty nice persons from Monero ) About your PoW hash, I am concerned there isn't enough entropy on the blockchain headers to prevent some trivial preimaging. I haven't had time to think deeply about it though, so no one should quote my concern as any thing more than an intuitive guess.
P.S. I never wrote that the ideal team size is 1 or 2 for all scenarios. Rather I said that for raw innovation, the ideal is 1 or 2 and for refinement via open source, the core team size should be larger (with hopefully a Benevolent Dictator to keep innovation from being stifled by consensus gridlock or chaos) and the community of eyeballs should be unbounded.
We don't use the whole header's data since it obviously not all of it is pseudo-random. For adding to scratchpad i use only: * prev block id * coin-base transaction's onetime key * coinbase transaction's outs keys (xored with prev_id) * blocks merkle hash So i took only that data that seems to be maximum close to random. (take a look into get_block_scratchpad_addendum(const block& b, std::vector<crypto::hash>& res) in src\currency_core\currency_format_utils.cpp: line 868) upd: PoW is changed because oroginal CN PoW is extremely slow, even with optimizations. Now, with that slow hash Bytecoin, Monero and others have to provide a link for downloading blockchain file instead of loading this from network cloud, tha's actually a real centralization. In Boolberry we have 5-times faster synchronization and don't need to centralized blockchain file preloading. Zoidberg |
|
|
|
Hello guys, I heard you were talking about pruning ring signatures from CryptoNote coins, so let me introduce Boolberry's solution:  Zoidberg |
|
|
|
Good News Everybody!
We are proud to announce the next presentation in our series
explaining Boolberry's unique and very important features.
In this presentation, you'll see why Boolberry can easily prune ring-signatures
avoiding block chain to bloat while Ordinary CryptoNote coins cannot.
> Download .pdf
|
|
|
|
Hi please help. When i try to start the new cpuminer, it was crashed. Minerd.exe stopped working. But the old cpuminer is works perfectly. In the run.bat: minerd.exe -a wildkeccak -o stratum+tcp://bbr.farm:7777 -u 1H7XL63Jqf9b1hg9cPxxWM2xEXpyV3c3KbX8rSXhjBxvBihp6vWHYHY9Af4Xj7BEWF2XvcoLZvA9hiDNm4sUKzmSRbandTL -p X -P -D -t 2 -k http://bbr.farm/download/scratchpad.bin
(Sorry for my bad english) is it crushed right after start ? or it work some time and crush later? stopped working right after start what os version ? is that 64bit? do you have all dlls that was in archive? |
|
|
|
Having set up solo mining, I have a question about making an alias. While I can issue the make_alias command, do I need to give it every time when restarting the daemon? Is it saved automatically, or is there a way to save it?
unfortunately no. it is not saved. i actually thought about this mostly as about feature that pools will be offering to users, i've not expected to solo mining after so long period. Anyway, we have pools now that offers an alias registration. |
|
|
|
Hi please help. When i try to start the new cpuminer, it was crashed. Minerd.exe stopped working. But the old cpuminer is works perfectly. In the run.bat: minerd.exe -a wildkeccak -o stratum+tcp://bbr.farm:7777 -u 1H7XL63Jqf9b1hg9cPxxWM2xEXpyV3c3KbX8rSXhjBxvBihp6vWHYHY9Af4Xj7BEWF2XvcoLZvA9hiDNm4sUKzmSRbandTL -p X -P -D -t 2 -k http://bbr.farm/download/scratchpad.bin
(Sorry for my bad english) is it crushed right after start ? or it work some time and crush later? |
|
|
|
thats the hard true about this world, most people dont say it but its everywhere... about bbr not being 32-bit compatible, cryptonotecoins require x64 architecture, things evolve.
the "hard true" is that saying that kind of thing is tactless and makes everyone in this thread look bad. posting such drivel on other coins' threads just casts a bad image on whatever you're promoting. This same person has been doing this again and again in this thread, the darkcoin thread, the monero thread and pretty much everywhere else.
well you can't stop people from writing it really. the devs and PR team have been good about staying out of the board politics, so there shouldn't be any problem. I understand that. Thanks for the comments. Looks like Dr. Zoidberg deleted his latest comment here in this thread which was quite inflammatory. There are quite a lot of us that respect real developers and do not want this type of fanboyism trickling to the main coin threads. We cannot stop it, but only express our dissatisfaction and hope it appeals to some of these outright trolling. I think our voices have been heard and we can get back to main discussion here. Thanks again. what you mean? i can't remember that i deleted my posts in last weeks... |
|
|
|
I'm trying to compile on Ubuntu 12.04 and it fails with the following errors: [ 21%] [ 22%] [ 23%] Building CXX object src/CMakeFiles/crypto.dir/crypto/wild_keccak.cpp.o
Building CXX object src/CMakeFiles/crypto.dir/crypto/crypto.cpp.o
cc1plus: error: -Werror=maybe-uninitialized: no option -Wmaybe-uninitialized
cc1plus: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-std=c++11’
Building C object src/CMakeFiles/crypto.dir/crypto/tree-hash.c.o
make[3]: *** [src/CMakeFiles/crypto.dir/crypto/wild_keccak.cpp.o] Error 1
make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
cc1plus: error: -Werror=maybe-uninitialized: no option -Wmaybe-uninitialized
cc1plus: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-std=c++11’
make[3]: *** [src/CMakeFiles/crypto.dir/crypto/crypto.cpp.o] Error 1
Linking C static library libminiupnpc.a
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/johndoe/boolberry/build/release'
[ 23%] Built target upnpc-static
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/johndoe/boolberry/build/release'
make[2]: *** [tests/CMakeFiles/crypto-tests.dir/all] Error 2
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/johndoe/boolberry/build/release'
make[2]: *** [src/CMakeFiles/crypto.dir/all] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/johndoe/boolberry/build/release'
make[1]: *** [all] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/johndoe/boolberry/build/release'
make: *** [build-release] Error 2 Any ideas? Intel platform. Thanks what gcc version do you have? |
|
|
|
where I can get boolberry logo in high resolution?
we have it in repo in resources folder. |
|
|
|
Thank you.......Works like charm  You do good work....without it people like myself would have no hope of being part of Boolberry Without poeple like you Boolberry would have no hope of being crypto-currency. |
|
|
|
Still not working
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.865043 Boolberry v0.2.0.28(0.1-unknown)
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.867043 Module folder: C:\Boolberry\boolberry-opencl-0.2.0.28-windows-x64\boolbd.exe
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.872044 Initializing p2p server...
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.877044 Binding on 0.0.0.0:10101
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.879044 Net service binded on 0.0.0.0:10101
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.881044 P2p server initialized OK on port: 10101
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.883044 Starting UPnP
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.884044 Initializing currency protocol...
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.886044 Currency protocol initialized OK
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.888045 Initializing core rpc server...
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.891045 Binding on 127.0.0.1:10102
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.893045 Core rpc server initialized OK on port: 10102
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.895045 Initializing core...
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.897045 Loading blockchain...
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.899045 ERROR C:\Develop\GitHub\boolberry-opencl\src\common/boost_serialization_helper.h:45[tools::unserialize_obj_from_file]Exception at [unserialize_obj_from_file], what=array size too short
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.906046 Can't load blockchain storage from file, generating genesis block.
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.909046 Block recognized as orphaned and rejected, id = <5a9ab6978a21b1c4e6be256f38c9b9597ab343e9dbc25aee3e6c4d5b26810d34>
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.914046 ERROR ..\..\src\currency_core\blockchain_storage.cpp:86[currency::blockchain_storage::init]Failed to add genesis block to blockchain
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.919046 ERROR ..\..\src\currency_core\currency_core.cpp:125[currency::core::init]Failed to initialize blockchain storage
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.925047 ERROR ..\..\src\daemon\daemon.cpp:169[main]Failed to initialize core
2014-Jul-25 17:39:30.929047 Mining has been stopped, 0 finished
SINCE WE MOVED TO NEW VERSION OF DIFFICULTY STORAGE FILE FORMAT FILE IS CHANGED. UNTIL mbk NOT MERGED LAST CHANGES YOU SHOULD DELETE BLOCKCHAIN VERSION THAT WAS RECENTLY USED BY ORIGINAL BOOLBERRY DAEMON, OR U HAVE TO PASS DATA DIR PARAMETER TO OPENCL MINER TO SPECIFY ANOTHER FOLDER WITHOUT BOOLBERRY BLOCKCHAIN. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
