[BBR] Boolberry: Privacy and Security - Guaranteed Since 2014

[hornyPo]

It took almost 2 years just to get to the 10,000 BTC = 1 pizza stage.

Bitcoin was released in 2009. I got onboard in mid-2010 and the price at that time was more like 100 BTC per pizza (Here, 1 pizza is around 5 euros).

You guys are so long in Bitcoin. You are lucky guys!

[crypto_zoidberg]

Good news!

Finally we prepared document that explains what is Blockchain-based Proof-of-Work hash function (Wild Keccak) and what ideas lay under this implementation.

http://boolberry.com/files/Block_Chain_Based_Proof_of_Work.pdf



Hope this help's with understanding what have done with proof of work.

Want to say thanks for help with that document to Mike, dga, tifozi, otila.

If you found some errors there, or want to add/correct/remove something - fill free to comment this google document:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pFmEs8pKj1gB1yXlIkrr6Mu1yqrTYQJ63N1e-DJ0RxA/edit

or write me pm.
or just write here if you want dicussion.


Zoidberg

[kingscrown]

price sux and devs should.. pump it not just change codes

[poornamelessme]

I'm currently trying to compare Boolberry vs. Monero, and the biggest thing that sticks out to me is the name. Is rebranding on the radar at all? Boolberry is cute, but you're selling yourselves short. Monero sounds like money, Boolberry sounds like a bubblegum flavor.

IMHO, Boolberry fits right in with the semi-childish names of tech giants like Google, Twitter, Apple.... and Blackberry. I'm sure these names were chosen to reflect our new, more playful times, as a clean break from the dead serious corporate images of portly men in dark suits. Let Monero have its suits, we have all the fun.

Indeed. That's exactly why I personally really like the name. It's a bit alternative, which can make it very memorable.

Absolutely nothing wrong with Monero, although it sounds like and means money.

Ask yourself does visa, mastercard or amex sound like money? Not really - Its only by association and familiarity of course.

Ask them - Do you accept boolberry ?

I really think the coin would benefit from a name change. I guess some folks here like it, and I've only followed the coin on occasion, but that name... it's hard to take it seriously.

And yes, it may be memorable, but not in a good way. Sort of like if a product didn't use such a ridiculous sounding name, it would have been a big hit. Boolberry sounds like a breakfast cereal to me... Boolberry goes better with Count Chocula, not crypto.

Just my opinion, and I'm sure many here feel differently. But I'd hope at some point rebranding is seriously considered -- just come up with something similar, just not as ridiculous. BooleanNote ... something like that would be better even.

[smooth]

It took almost 2 years just to get to the 10,000 BTC = 1 pizza stage.

Bitcoin was released in 2009. I got onboard in mid-2010 and the price at that time was more like 100 BTC per pizza (Here, 1 pizza is around 5 euros).

Correction: It was two pizzas, so 5000 per pizza at about $12.50 per pizza.  

The date was May 22, 2010.

The genesis block was January 3, 2009.

That is 17 months.

The price subsequently increased rapidly in 2010, as recounted at the history page (linked below).

The point being after 17 months it was still 10000 BTC = $25 i.e. 1 BTC = $0.0025 (and was 18% mined). That is a very long time by today's standards. Almost (but not quite) literally a premine in the sense that it was 18% mined before it was used for anything.

Sources:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137.msg1195#msg1195
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/History#2010

[jd1959]

Anyone know what's up with BBRFarm.......it looks like found blocks aren't maturing?

on an other note whats wrong with Boolberry.........It's unique and the tech is more important than the name

edit:
 What I mean is you can paint a turd gold, polish it call it anything you want......it's still a turd

 If Boolberry keeps the tech moving forward it will succeed....regardless of name

[poornamelessme]

Just my opinion, and I'm sure many here feel differently. But I'd hope at some point rebranding is seriously considered -- just come up with something similar, just not as ridiculous. BooleanNote ... something like that would be better even.

NightBoolean!

anyway, another voting for name now that boolberry is popular would give the dev alot of interesting choices i'm sure, and would satisfy the community

I didn't think of that, but I expect it would. At the least, it'd provide some decent options I expect.

Tech is of course important, but I hope folks don't dismiss branding. It's what gets people's attention from the start. Some of the arguments, like it's a fun, semi-childish name, or amex, visa, etc. don't sound like they are related to money, are valid opinions. But a fun, semi-childish name probably isn't working that great for boolberry currently.

When I see the name, I think of this --http://www.comicrelated.com/graphics/boo-berry.jpg

Not something that would work well as a crypto, or something the general public would even consider using as a currency.

[hornyPo]

Just my opinion, and I'm sure many here feel differently. But I'd hope at some point rebranding is seriously considered -- just come up with something similar, just not as ridiculous. BooleanNote ... something like that would be better even.

NightBoolean!

anyway, another voting for name now that boolberry is popular would give the dev alot of interesting choices i'm sure, and would satisfy the community

We had two discussion threads in the past about name voting, and nothing better than Boolberry came out.
I don´t get why ppl like names like "Night", "Dark", "Shadow", "Note", "Liberty". It´s all sounds pubertal or nerdish to me.

You ever ask a girl if she like the name Boolberry? She first will associate it with Burberry, and this is good i think. 
In this moment when Boolberry will adopt to a large audience, Boolberry will benefit from his name.



 

[PVmining]

The pool I setup from the repository send updates in less then 100ms but it looks there is other bug anyway. Shares submitted right after the block/scratchpad update are rejected by the test pool. The pool_warn.log is:

Code:

Bad hash from miner XXX@10.0.2.2
 scratchpadHeight.height=63856, job.height=63858

Looks like the pool validates the share with the old scratchpad.
P.S. Checked the source - that's the case. Pool's scratchpad is updated through getFullScratchpad RPC call. It takes 3 seconds on my system. At the same time miner's scratchpad updated instantly by ADDENDUM in new block data. So valid shares are rejected by the pool if sent in less then 3 seconds after the new block.

Any idea how to fix this in the pool source?
or is there a workaround for my own solo-mining-test pool?

[crypto_zoidberg]

The pool I setup from the repository send updates in less then 100ms but it looks there is other bug anyway. Shares submitted right after the block/scratchpad update are rejected by the test pool. The pool_warn.log is:

Code:

Bad hash from miner XXX@10.0.2.2
 scratchpadHeight.height=63856, job.height=63858

Looks like the pool validates the share with the old scratchpad.
P.S. Checked the source - that's the case. Pool's scratchpad is updated through getFullScratchpad RPC call. It takes 3 seconds on my system. At the same time miner's scratchpad updated instantly by ADDENDUM in new block data. So valid shares are rejected by the pool if sent in less then 3 seconds after the new block.

Any idea how to fix this in the pool source?

Need to implement the same incremental pool's scratchpad update as it used by minerd, via addendums. Or, as other workaround - export scratchpad via file on disk, but it still workaround. Normally need to implement addendums reading.

[dga]

I think the name is not the key point, the point is the mining issues, it kills this coin, in the early time, there's private GPU tool for mining when most of us are using cpu, it's unfair for most people, and it last for maybe two months, until MBK made the stratum pool and updated the opensource GPU tool  the  situation of distribution changed  a little. Compared to Monero, GPU mining tool appeared early, and it was also efficient at the beginning, so it's not just the name make the difference between BBR and MRO, but the distribution

This is not factually correct - please see my comments on the rpietila thread.

The two coins are *surprisingly* similar in the %age of coins mined during the time someone had an advantaged miner.  If anything, XMR is actually just slightly worse, because it has a faster emission curve and therefore a few more coins were mined during the time.  (Remember that XMR's curve is twice as fast as BBR's.)

This is a perception problem used by people to bash on BBR, not a reality problem.

[smooth]

I think the name is not the key point, the point is the mining issues, it kills this coin, in the early time, there's private GPU tool for mining when most of us are using cpu, it's unfair for most people, and it last for maybe two months, until MBK made the stratum pool and updated the opensource GPU tool  the  situation of distribution changed  a little. Compared to Monero, GPU mining tool appeared early, and it was also efficient at the beginning, so it's not just the name make the difference between BBR and MRO, but the distribution

This is not factually correct - please see my comments on the rpietila thread.

The two coins are *surprisingly* similar in the %age of coins mined during the time someone had an advantaged miner.  If anything, XMR is actually just slightly worse, because it has a faster emission curve and therefore a few more coins were mined during the time.  (Remember that XMR's curve is twice as fast as BBR's.)

This is a perception problem used by people to bash on BBR, not a reality problem.

The could be only perception, but I'm not sure. It seems a lot of non-advantaged people reported being able to successfully mine XMR and stuck with it, while a lot of BBR miners tended to complain and give up. I have no objective information about the magnitude of these, I'm just going by what I saw on the threads, IRC, etc.

Maybe that is just because the XMR price was going up, lifting all the boats so to speak, I really don't know the history of the price curves of the coins though. I remember BBR have a run up too. If so that would have affected both coins equally.

Perhaps having pools earlier helped XMR. (Is this even true? I'm not sure.) Small miners were able to get something even if they couldn't quite compete on equal footing. Or maybe the faster XMR curve meant there were more coins to go around (that's not entirely rational of course, but people aren't either).

I do think that early coin adoption is rather critical and fragile, and that optimizing miners who come along and "rape" a coin (whether or not associated with the developer) can do a lot of damage. I don't think they owe the coin anything, so there is nothing immoral about this, but people doing it have to decide if they want to help the coin or maximize mining profits. That's an individual decision. Coin developers who don't want to be in this position need to ensure that easy/early optimziations aren't possible. Both BBR and XMR failed on this (as do almost every coin that comes up with some new PoW although most of them are probably actual developer instamine-type scams).

I hope this doesn't come off as bashing becuase that is not my intent at all, I'm just trying to interpret what I saw happening in the past.

[tifozi]

Average joes cannot compete in mining any coin, neither BBR or worse , XMR. The FUD with respect to mining continued even when faster public miners came about, private miners were gone from BBR citing profitability issues, and other developments. New PoWs tend to give GPU mining coders an advantage early on, not because a unit of GPU is that much faster, but scaling with GPUs via legitimate hardware is much easier with already available personal rigs or rental resources.

Those who are accumulating XMR or BBR are doing on the exchanges, not by mining. Both essentially are not profitable at the moment for small home miners. It is not mining that dictates success of a coin in current markets, which is why some consider PoW to be fundamentally broken these days. The mining FUD has been played out.

Risto, and other old school Bitcoiners went to XMR first as it was developing a larger team and came to the market first. Once investments are made, it is not just easy to come out of it even when a better solution comes forward. Crypto investments cannot work that way all of a sudden in a large scale. Rubbishing advancements made in BBR was a side effect of this fundamental operating principle of crypto market economies.

If one is not fond of this coin, there may be other reasons to be dismissive, subtle or transparent. Mining has nothing to do with it.

[hornyPo]

I think the name is not the key point, the point is the mining issues, it kills this coin, in the early time, there's private GPU tool for mining when most of us are using cpu, it's unfair for most people, and it last for maybe two months, until MBK made the stratum pool and updated the opensource GPU tool  the  situation of distribution changed  a little. Compared to Monero, GPU mining tool appeared early, and it was also efficient at the beginning, so it's not just the name make the difference between BBR and MRO, but the distribution

This is not factually correct - please see my comments on the rpietila thread.

The two coins are *surprisingly* similar in the %age of coins mined during the time someone had an advantaged miner.  If anything, XMR is actually just slightly worse, because it has a faster emission curve and therefore a few more coins were mined during the time.  (Remember that XMR's curve is twice as fast as BBR's.)

This is a perception problem used by people to bash on BBR, not a reality problem.

And because your post from 2. August 2014 is so good, i want to quote it here in Boolberry thread.

 This should be the reference when some one told about mining issues again.

dga talking about mining issues in BBR and XMR

quote

Same rules apply to people bashing BBR. Tainting it because of christian developing a private miner?

I think they likely to be quite different. My last post estimated that roughly 2% of XMR coins were mined before the public miner was un-de-optimzied. What is corresponding percentage of BBR coins? Since the emission curve is reasonable I still don't think the number is that large (compared to absurdly instamined coins -- and shills for these coins on this thread you know who you are) but it still may be higher than XMR. Or perhaps not. I haven't really been following it so I don't know.

They're surprisingly similar in terms of %age.  The gap for the de-optimized miner vs a GPU miner was larger (20x gap vs 5x gap), but as we all know, it's easier to bring more GPUs to bear on mining unless you have a botnet.  Boolberry is currently around 5% mined, and it's had a public GPU miner for several weeks.  The timeline for the un-de-optimization can be read pretty clearly from the git commit history on bitmonero:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commits/master/src/crypto/slow-hash.c

Block 1 was mined at 2014-04-18 10:49:53, and Noodle's first optimization was committed into the repository on May 7, but recall that those initial optimizations were still in the 5-10 h/s range.  The more significant one was May 21, and then the current-generation "hyper-optimized" miners came into play a week or so after that.

I think it's important to distinguish between "de-optimized" (which I'd say was the state before the May 21 commit) and "not yet optimized".  What Noodle got things to on May 21 was what a reasonable, sane person might think of as an implementation of CryptoNite.  The things that followed were architecture-specific optimizations, and we can have a separate fight about the degree to which devs should feel required to release vector-optimized code in a first release vs. letting the legions of optimizers handle it for them at the cost of some free coins.

This is around block 50,000 in the XMR blockchain.

mbk's GPU miner for Boolberry was released July 19:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=693118.msg7928171#msg7928171

This is around block 45,000 in the BBR blockchain.

That's frighteningly similar, all things considered.  I hadn't actually done that analysis before -- interesting.

I think it's worth differentiating "unfair" from "the @*ing dev cheated".  I'm not entirely sure why I feel so strongly about this, but I do -- I think it's because it destroys any trust I'd have in the developers, and when you're dealing with *money*, it's important to have a dev team you can trust -- otherwise, what else did they hide in the code that you haven't had a chance to find yet?

I'm pretty convinced that neither the XMR or Boolberry devs cheated in this way.  I'm also pretty convinced that the Bytecoin devs did:  that code was so de-optimized it was a joke, and I think that all of us who touched it concur.  But it's not the XMR team's fault that they inherited something sneaky in the code and acted to root it out.  And the BBR initial implementation was pretty well optimized -- the things that otila and wolf did on top of it take work and are beyond what "the average developer skilled in the art" (but not interesting in to-the-metal optimization) should be expected to do.

/quote

[dga]

I think the name is not the key point, the point is the mining issues, it kills this coin, in the early time, there's private GPU tool for mining when most of us are using cpu, it's unfair for most people, and it last for maybe two months, until MBK made the stratum pool and updated the opensource GPU tool  the  situation of distribution changed  a little. Compared to Monero, GPU mining tool appeared early, and it was also efficient at the beginning, so it's not just the name make the difference between BBR and MRO, but the distribution

This is not factually correct - please see my comments on the rpietila thread.

The two coins are *surprisingly* similar in the %age of coins mined during the time someone had an advantaged miner.  If anything, XMR is actually just slightly worse, because it has a faster emission curve and therefore a few more coins were mined during the time.  (Remember that XMR's curve is twice as fast as BBR's.)

This is a perception problem used by people to bash on BBR, not a reality problem.

The could be only perception, but I'm not sure. It seems a lot of non-advantaged people reported being able to successfully mine XMR and stuck with it, while a lot of BBR miners tended to complain and give up. I have no objective information about the magnitude of these, I'm just going by what I saw on the threads, IRC, etc.

Maybe that is just because the XMR price was going up, lifting all the boats so to speak, I really don't know the history of the price curves of the coins though. I remember BBR have a run up too. If so that would have affected both coins equally.

Perhaps having pools earlier helped XMR. (Is this even true? I'm not sure.) Small miners were able to get something even if they couldn't quite compete on equal footing. Or maybe the faster XMR curve meant there were more coins to go around (that's not entirely rational of course, but people aren't either).

I do think that early coin adoption is rather critical and fragile, and that optimizing miners who come along and "rape" a coin (whether or not associated with the developer) can do a lot of damage. I don't think they owe the coin anything, so there is nothing immoral about this, but people doing it have to decide if they want to help the coin or maximize mining profits. That's an individual decision. Coin developers who don't want to be in this position need to ensure that easy/early optimziations aren't possible. Both BBR and XMR failed on this (as do almost every coin that comes up with some new PoW although most of them are probably actual developer instamine-type scams).

I hope this doesn't come off as bashing becuase that is not my intent at all, I'm just trying to interpret what I saw happening in the past.

I think it was the efficiency gap and difficulty of solo vs. pooled.  For a lot of its time (including when the first public GPU miner was released), the fastest miners for BBR were solo miners.

For someone coming from bitcoin-clones, it's more tricky to compile and use the cryptonote stuff.  It's not *hard*, it's just different, and has different software dependencies, command line arguments, etc.  This applies to XMR as well as BBR, of course.

But with that gap - only closed with the availability of stratum-running GPU miners - BBR had some barriers that gave the more technically clueful an advantage in mining.  EC2 remained (at least slightly) profitable for much longer than I'd have expected with BBR, for example, and I think it was because optimizations were scattered around -- mine to simpleminer, otila's to the daemon with some tricky copy-pasting, etc.  You had to be comfortable patching code a little to really get the best of all of them together and working right.

My optimized miner didn't hurt XMR much (we could argue this, of course, but I didn't see too much yelling).  I think the difference was that Christian was public about his in an inflammatory way that made people really *feel* the inequity.  It's tough when you know you're not getting what someone else is.  With most currencies, you might suspect, but you don't *know* that you're behind.  Because once the coins are on the exchange, it's all about the buyers and sellers.  Perception absolutely is important.

[tifozi]

Finally we prepared document that explains what is Blockchain-based Proof-of-Work hash function (Wild Keccak) and what ideas lay under this implementation.

http://boolberry.com/files/Block_Chain_Based_Proof_of_Work.pdf

Might be a good idea to add to OP 

[btc-mike]

Finally we prepared document that explains what is Blockchain-based Proof-of-Work hash function (Wild Keccak) and what ideas lay under this implementation.

http://boolberry.com/files/Block_Chain_Based_Proof_of_Work.pdf

Might be a good idea to add to OP 

Will do. I was already updating first post, will add this.

fyi - first post of GPU mining thread has been updated.

[hornyPo]

My optimized miner didn't hurt XMR much (we could argue this, of course, but I didn't see too much yelling).  I think the difference was that Christian was public about his in an inflammatory way that made people really *feel* the inequity.  It's tough when you know you're not getting what someone else is.  With most currencies, you might suspect, but you don't *know* that you're behind.  Because once the coins are on the exchange, it's all about the buyers and sellers.  Perception absolutely is important.

I was surprised how strong people feel aggrieved if they *think* they are treated inequity, here on this board.
I would say Christian don´t hurt the coin from his mining but from his honesty and inflammatory about his mining activity.
And this also only in the short run. (i hope so)
In the long run he forced the development of stratum and in the end a open source OpenGL miner for Nvidia and AMD.

[smooth]

My optimized miner didn't hurt XMR much (we could argue this, of course, but I didn't see too much yelling).  I think the difference was that Christian was public about his in an inflammatory way that made people really *feel* the inequity.  It's tough when you know you're not getting what someone else is.  With most currencies, you might suspect, but you don't *know* that you're behind.  Because once the coins are on the exchange, it's all about the buyers and sellers.  Perception absolutely is important.

I don't think it was just perception or Christian's attitude. For some reason non-advantaged miners on XMR were still able to successfully mine while a lot of people reported not being able to get anything with BBR. Maybe that is pools or maybe it is the relative difference in advantage (especially once at least modest optimizations started getting committed to the base XMR code), or the faster emission, or some combination of these, but something definitely seemed different about the mining position of the "little guy" for a while.

[dga]

My optimized miner didn't hurt XMR much (we could argue this, of course, but I didn't see too much yelling).  I think the difference was that Christian was public about his in an inflammatory way that made people really *feel* the inequity.  It's tough when you know you're not getting what someone else is.  With most currencies, you might suspect, but you don't *know* that you're behind.  Because once the coins are on the exchange, it's all about the buyers and sellers.  Perception absolutely is important.

I don't think it was just perception or Christian's attitude. For some reason non-advantaged miners on XMR were still able to successfully mine while a lot of people reported not being able to get anything with BBR. Maybe that is pools or maybe it is the relative difference in advantage (especially once at least modest optimizations started getting committed to the base XMR code), or both, but something definitely seemed different about the mining position of the "little guy" for a while.

I buy your original suggestion of pools.  The pools for BBR were never very successful at the start, and pools make it way easier for casual miners.

My advantage on XMR was larger than Christian's advantage on BBR because of the initial bytecoin deoptimization until my tweaks were incorporated into wolf and the public miners, from comparing what Wolf's miner gets vs what CPUs were getting on the smaller (cache-resident) blockchain back then.

It's funny - and a little worrisome - how important pools are for getting people to play the mining game.  I don't object to it, but it does create a somewhat scary centralization point, as we've seen with ghash.io.  It would be terribly easy to 51% most coins by creating a few "independent", solid pools, offering great fees or even incentive bonuses, and going to town.  I'm not sure that I buy Gun et al.'s proposal for enforcing small pools, but it's yet another important thing to consider for the long term of cryptocurrencies.