[BBR] Boolberry Speculation

[smooth]

Without volumes, there is no privacy, that is why I am frontloading things that will create the volumes. What point to have perfect privacy on paper that in reality is trivial to brute force correlate due to small overall volumes?

I don't necessarily agree here. A big advantage of cryptonote is the lack of requirement for simultaneity.

There are certainly side channels that are possible if an observer knows something about your activity (for example that you are making a large purchase). But absent those side channels, private transactions can still occur even at a low frequency. I could send you 100 BTC worth of coins right now on XMR (BBR might be harder given the low total value) and while someone would know that a large transaction is occurring, they wouldn't know it was me sending it to you (as opposed me moving coins between cold storage, an exchange moving coins, etc.), nor would blockchain analysis ever be likely to determine this (unless, as I said earlier, they already knew that I was sending you coins).

All of these systems are susceptible to sybil attacks, which makes real activity somewhat valuable (in making sybil attacks more expensive). In the case of cryptonote the sybil attacker has to control a large portion of the entire output set, which makes the likely-fake activity on the BCN network even more suspicious. It is hard to argue that BBR is sybil attacked when hardly anyone is creating outputs!

Nobody disagrees with the premise and value of growing usage of a coin network, but coinjoin/coinshuffle-style systems make it more necessary to have a high level of real activity at nearly every moment in time, while cryptonote does not.

[LucyLovesCrypto]

IMHO the most important thing happening with boolberry right now is the DB testing which you can see (and test) for yourself here:
https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry/tree/db

The last commit was authored 6 days ago:
https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry/commit/7a1f1016570937c5a8197c6d987c95f05bd0582c

I had not noticed the recent commit. Nice!

Can someone explain the meaning and importance of the most recent update? How much DB testing is left to be done?

[smooth]

IMHO the most important thing happening with boolberry right now is the DB testing which you can see (and test) for yourself here:
https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry/tree/db

The last commit was authored 6 days ago:
https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry/commit/7a1f1016570937c5a8197c6d987c95f05bd0582c

I had not noticed the recent commit. Nice!

Can someone explain the meaning and importance of the most recent update? How much DB testing is left to be done?

Looks like foundational work to move more of the data into the database. As c-z noted earlier, he intends to do it incrementally but getting it all in there will take a little while

[funnyman21]

I am trying to understand the mixin issue talked about here

http://boolberry.com/files/Boolberry_Solves_CryptoNote_Flaws.pdf
https://lab.getmonero.org/pubs/MRL-0004.pdf

If you receive coins with 0 mixins (such as from an exchange) what is the best way to ensure future transactions will not become linkable? Will sending coins to yourself (at the same address) with a mixin of 3 solve the issue of future transacations being linked back to you and the exchange from where you received the coins with mixin = 0?

[smooth]

I am trying to understand the mixin issue talked about here

http://boolberry.com/files/Boolberry_Solves_CryptoNote_Flaws.pdf
https://lab.getmonero.org/pubs/MRL-0004.pdf

If you receive coins with 0 mixins (such as from an exchange) what is the best way to ensure future transactions will not become linkable? Will sending coins to yourself (at the same address) with a mixin of 3 solve the issue of future transacations being linked back to you and the exchange from where you received the coins with mixin = 0?

The issue is not how you receive the coins, and in any case if it were the BBR feature wouldn't fix it. (And yes you can send coins back to yourself, even multiple times, to perform mixing without a counterparty.) The issue is that when you choose outputs to mix with, if those outputs end up getting spent with 0 mix, then your mix is unwound. Example: You are spending A, you mix with B and C, so A|B|C -> D. Now if B is spent with mix 0 to E, and C is spent with mix 0 to F, it is revealed that your original transaction was A|B|C -> D, or just A -> D

BBR proposes to fix this by tagging outputs that can't be spent with a low mix. Then you can safely use those outputs to as your mixing partners with A, and the above situation can't occur. There is a bit of a bootstrapping problem in how you get people to create these tagged outputs in the first place, and a few other issues. While better than nothing, I don't think as currently conceived it is a great approach overall, and I'm not saying this to trash BBR, it just my honest opinion.

[funnyman21]

I am trying to understand the mixin issue talked about here

http://boolberry.com/files/Boolberry_Solves_CryptoNote_Flaws.pdf
https://lab.getmonero.org/pubs/MRL-0004.pdf

If you receive coins with 0 mixins (such as from an exchange) what is the best way to ensure future transactions will not become linkable? Will sending coins to yourself (at the same address) with a mixin of 3 solve the issue of future transacations being linked back to you and the exchange from where you received the coins with mixin = 0?

The issue is not how you receive the coins, and in any case if it were the BBR feature wouldn't fix it. (And yes you can send coins back to yourself, even multiple times, to perform mixing without a counterparty.) The issue is that when you choose outputs to mix with, if those outputs end up getting spent with 0 mix, then your mix is unwound. Example: You are spending A, you mix with B and C, so A|B|C -> D. Now if B is spent with mix 0 to E, and C is spent with mix 0 to F, it is revealed that your original transaction was A|B|C -> D, or just A -> D

BBR proposes to fix this by tagging outputs that can't be spent with a low mix. Then you can safely use those outputs to as your mixing partners with A, and the above situation can't occur. There is a bit of a bootstrapping problem in how you get people to create these tagged outputs in the first place, and a few other issues. While better than nothing, I don't think as currently conceived it is a great approach overall, and I'm not saying this to trash BBR, it just my honest opinion.

Are you saying the BBR solution will work if everyone used the tagged outputs option to force mixins? However right now some people (such as exchanges) do not use this flag option so the mixin = 0 problems still exist?

Basically the solutions needs to be mandatory instead (creating the flagged outputs) instead of optional if we expect everyone to comply.

[smooth]

I am trying to understand the mixin issue talked about here

http://boolberry.com/files/Boolberry_Solves_CryptoNote_Flaws.pdf
https://lab.getmonero.org/pubs/MRL-0004.pdf

If you receive coins with 0 mixins (such as from an exchange) what is the best way to ensure future transactions will not become linkable? Will sending coins to yourself (at the same address) with a mixin of 3 solve the issue of future transacations being linked back to you and the exchange from where you received the coins with mixin = 0?

The issue is not how you receive the coins, and in any case if it were the BBR feature wouldn't fix it. (And yes you can send coins back to yourself, even multiple times, to perform mixing without a counterparty.) The issue is that when you choose outputs to mix with, if those outputs end up getting spent with 0 mix, then your mix is unwound. Example: You are spending A, you mix with B and C, so A|B|C -> D. Now if B is spent with mix 0 to E, and C is spent with mix 0 to F, it is revealed that your original transaction was A|B|C -> D, or just A -> D

BBR proposes to fix this by tagging outputs that can't be spent with a low mix. Then you can safely use those outputs to as your mixing partners with A, and the above situation can't occur. There is a bit of a bootstrapping problem in how you get people to create these tagged outputs in the first place, and a few other issues. While better than nothing, I don't think as currently conceived it is a great approach overall, and I'm not saying this to trash BBR, it just my honest opinion.

Are you saying the BBR solution will work if everyone used the tagged outputs option to force mixins? However right now some people (such as exchanges) do not use this flag option so the mixin = 0 problems still exist?

Basically the solutions needs to be mandatory instead (creating the flagged outputs) instead of optional if we expect everyone to comply.

That's one of the problems. Then there are problems like the nuisance you can create by sending someone a payment with minimum=100. Even assuming they can find 100 outputs to mix with, their transaction will be huge.

[funnyman21]

Are you saying the BBR solution will work if everyone used the tagged outputs option to force mixins? However right now some people (such as exchanges) do not use this flag option so the mixin = 0 problems still exist?

Basically the solutions needs to be mandatory instead (creating the flagged outputs) instead of optional if we expect everyone to comply.

That's one of the problems. Then there are problems like the nuisance you can create by sending someone a payment with minimum=100. Even assuming they can find 100 outputs to mix with, their transaction will be huge.

You bring up another interesting point! Do you think there should be a maximum mixin for CryptoNote coins to avoid "huge" transactions? If so how big should it be? Is there any practical use for having a mixin greater than 10?

[letsplayagame]

Little known fact: if you are using the current version of simplewallet, you can just leave the mixin out entirely and it will use 3.

Is this default behavior Monero specific or does it also apply to the Boolberry simplewallet and GUI?

[smooth]

Little known fact: if you are using the current version of simplewallet, you can just leave the mixin out entirely and it will use 3.

Is this default behavior Monero specific or does it also apply to the Boolberry simplewallet and GUI?

It was added to Monero, but no reason why other cryptonotes can't adopt it. I don't know what the Boolberry GUI does, but I would assume a GUI should offer users good defaults.

[boolberry]

Little known fact: if you are using the current version of simplewallet, you can just leave the mixin out entirely and it will use 3.

Is this default behavior Monero specific or does it also apply to the Boolberry simplewallet and GUI?

It was added to Monero, but no reason why other cryptonotes can't adopt it. I don't know what the Boolberry GUI does, but I would assume a GUI should offer users good defaults.

The GUI does not set a mixin by default but that may be something to think about for the next version. The GUI currently provides these send payment options (all can be chosen by user):
address
amount
payment id
mixin
fee
unlock time (Use "1d" or "1h" or n, where n is the number of blocks within which the transaction must be blocked.)

[newb4now]

Little known fact: if you are using the current version of simplewallet, you can just leave the mixin out entirely and it will use 3.

Is this default behavior Monero specific or does it also apply to the Boolberry simplewallet and GUI?

It was added to Monero, but no reason why other cryptonotes can't adopt it. I don't know what the Boolberry GUI does, but I would assume a GUI should offer users good defaults.

The GUI does not set a mixin by default but that may be something to think about for the next version. The GUI currently provides these send payment options (all can be chosen by user):
address
amount
payment id
mixin
fee
unlock time (Use "1d" or "1h" or n, where n is the number of blocks within which the transaction must be blocked.)

Is there a specific purpose for the unlock time function? Could smart contracts or escrow arrangements make use of this?

[XMRpromotions]

Little known fact: if you are using the current version of simplewallet, you can just leave the mixin out entirely and it will use 3.

Is this default behavior Monero specific or does it also apply to the Boolberry simplewallet and GUI?

It was added to Monero, but no reason why other cryptonotes can't adopt it. I don't know what the Boolberry GUI does, but I would assume a GUI should offer users good defaults.

The GUI does not set a mixin by default but that may be something to think about for the next version. The GUI currently provides these send payment options (all can be chosen by user):
address
amount
payment id
mixin
fee
unlock time (Use "1d" or "1h" or n, where n is the number of blocks within which the transaction must be blocked.)

Is there a specific purpose for the unlock time function? Could smart contracts or escrow arrangements make use of this?

I think there are multiple uses for this. Monero also has an unlock_time feature:
tx.unlock_time = height + CRYPTONOTE_MINED_MONEY_UNLOCK_WINDOW;
https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=unlock_time

[smooth]

I think there are multiple uses for this. Monero also has an unlock_time feature:

The unlock_time stuff works the same in all cryptonotes afaik, except maybe XDN, which has implemented their "savings accounts on the blockchain" idea (when you lock you get interest).

The MINED_MONEY_UNLOCK is a bit different. That locks newly-mined coins so chains of transactions aren't broken if those coins cease to exist after a chain reorg. Before using those coins the chain has to settle/mature a bit.

I don't really know of the purpose for unlock_time feature though.

[XMRpromotions]

I think there are multiple uses for this. Monero also has an unlock_time feature:

The unlock_time stuff works the same in all cryptonotes afaik, except maybe XDN, which has implemented their "savings accounts on the blockchain" idea (when you lock you get interest).

The MINED_MONEY_UNLOCK is a bit different. That locks newly-mined coins so chains of transactions aren't broken if those coins cease to exist after a chain reorg. Before using those coins the chain has to settle/mature a bit.

I don't really know of the purpose for unlock_time feature though.

Maybe there is not a single purpose. We can use our imaginations to think of ways delaying delivery of currency could be helpful.

Maybe you have a kid you want to send Monero or Boolberry to when he or she turns 25 years old. You could set the unlock_time to set that up years in advance.

Annuities or mortgage paments on the blockchain could work exactly this way. Delivery for many XMR or BBR payments could be set far in advance.

[boolberry]

IMHO the most important thing happening with boolberry right now is the DB testing which you can see (and test) for yourself here:
https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry/tree/db

The last commit was authored 6 days ago:
https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry/commit/7a1f1016570937c5a8197c6d987c95f05bd0582c

I had not noticed the recent commit. Nice!

Can someone explain the meaning and importance of the most recent update? How much DB testing is left to be done?

Looks like foundational work to move more of the data into the database. As c-z noted earlier, he intends to do it incrementally but getting it all in there will take a little while

I speculate that more people will start to pay attention to Boolberry once they realize the importance of this DB work. It is an important foundation that will make future development in a number of areas easier.

[languagehasmeaning]

IMHO the most important thing happening with boolberry right now is the DB testing which you can see (and test) for yourself here:
https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry/tree/db

The last commit was authored 6 days ago:
https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry/commit/7a1f1016570937c5a8197c6d987c95f05bd0582c

I had not noticed the recent commit. Nice!

Can someone explain the meaning and importance of the most recent update? How much DB testing is left to be done?

Looks like foundational work to move more of the data into the database. As c-z noted earlier, he intends to do it incrementally but getting it all in there will take a little while

I speculate that more people will start to pay attention to Boolberry once they realize the importance of this DB work. It is an important foundation that will make future development in a number of areas easier.

Let's speculate about what will be next for Boolberry after the db work is done! From what I read in this thread it sounds like taking the DB out of RAM will make SuperNet integration easier. It should also help anyone with a very old computer and little RAM.

What would everyone like to see from Boolberry next? Maybe tools to make merchant integration easier? How about the ability to sign transactions offline or private blockchain messaging from the wallet?

[tokeweed]

How's the volume of BBR?

[funnyman21]

How's the volume of BBR?

Right now volume is pretty low. That is a problem because it makes it hard to buy or sell a large position quickly without significantly moving the price.  All that can really be done at the moment is to buy or sell small amounts at a time or place large buy or sell walls and be willing to wait a long time before they get filled.  I hope volume increases but I know its a problem faced by many coins.

[newb4now]

How's the volume of BBR?

Right now volume is pretty low. That is a problem because it makes it hard to buy or sell a large position quickly without significantly moving the price.  All that can really be done at the moment is to buy or sell small amounts at a time or place large buy or sell walls and be willing to wait a long time before they get filled.  I hope volume increases but I know its a problem faced by many coins.

Volume will probably rise when the new database work is done.

It would be nice if Boolberry could do something like this: https://forum.getmonero.org/8/funding-required

That way more developers can pitch projects and get paid for their work if the community approves.