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

[Pyrrhic]

This won't affect mixing since we will still have ring signatures above this block going forward correct?

You can mixin with transactions that is as under checkoint as after checkpoin - no difference, it's not affect. Any of them still could be usen for mixin.

Can it be detected that they were mixins from the part of the blockchain that was pruned or no? Do you have more detailed information about your transaction structure?

I can't make much information from your nice powerpoints, sorry.

[crypto_zoidberg]

This is great work! 

I checked the blockchain file size before I updated and after. This trimmed 4.075977% off of the blockchain on my computer.  It was actually more because I hadn't synced for a day or two before I updated and resynced the blockchain.  BBR already synced faster than the other CN coins and this will just make it that much faster and more usable.  I can't wait to see what future developments you come up with crypto_zoidberg.  Advances in the implementation of the Cryptonote technology like this are the reason that BBR IS the BEST Cryptonote coin.  You have made more significant changes to the original codebase than any other implementation of CN.  It's only a matter of time before that becomes a well known fact within the crypto community and BBR takes its rightful place as the leader among Cryptonote coins. 

You deserve some kind of recognition for your hard work so I'm donating another 500 BBR to your dev fund.  BBR transaction# 682e5ea5c373bc8f877189d3b0632c580a384135f8818fd53d6ca5fab417db4c

Keep up the good work!


Blockchain with release "bbr-win-x64-v0.2.0.37(ceecfdf)":




Blockchain after updating to version "bbr-win-x64-v0.3.0.38(109f49c)":

I feel that i need to clarify a little here.
First - as i said before - pruning transactions will make significant effect for those part of blockchain that have pretty much transactions in it. Early blockchain consist mostly from coinbase transactions that is not affected(coinbase transaction doesn't have ring signatures). But anyway, there more that 8000 usual transactions in first 70000 blocks.

Second, blockchain.bin is not simple blockchain. When daemon receive blocks with transactions it build from this data special database in memory, there tons of helpful information that is used to verify blocks and transactions and to handle currency rules: global outputs index (that is used to refering in transactions inputs ), transactions database, some information related with each block(such as cumulative difficulty, scratchpad offeset, block cumulative size, emitted coins, etc), blocks by id database, spent keyimages, finally scratchpad. 
All this information is serizlised (dumped)  into this file (blockchain.bin), so it is obvious that there some huge data overhead. So actually summary blocks + transactions size is not so big, hard to say exact numbers, x times less. And this is another reason why you see not much difference - since ringsignatures is actually ballast it is not used in other data model, and after pruning it data model stay almost the same.

Main benefit from this feature is decrease traffic usage(actuall data amount that transfered between syncronizing nodes under checkpoints get significant decrease), and some times (when synchronizing reduced by bandwidth) - speed up synchronyzing.

[crypto_zoidberg]

This won't affect mixing since we will still have ring signatures above this block going forward correct?

You can mixin with transactions that is as under checkoint as after checkpoin - no difference, it's not affect. Any of them still could be usen for mixin.

Can it be detected that they were mixins from the part of the blockchain that was pruned or no? Do you have more detailed information about your transaction structure?

I can't make much information from your nice powerpoints, sorry.

Transactions that lay before checkpoins and have pruned ring signatures could be spent, or could be not spent yet. No matter.
I have very similar transaction structure, and it refferes to other transaction's outputs with the same way as any CN - amount + index. So you know exactly from wich transaction your input's selected for mixins.
So answering to your question - yes, it may be detected, and there is no difference since both part of blockchain contatin as spent transactions, as unspent.

[crypto_zoidberg]

Another great addition should be a database. Are there plans of implementing that yet?

Yes sure, database is important milestone.
I was actually curiouse if Monero devs finally gona release it? Because it's pretty boring work, and i'm not really want to do it myself:)

[Pyrrhic]

This won't affect mixing since we will still have ring signatures above this block going forward correct?

You can mixin with transactions that is as under checkoint as after checkpoin - no difference, it's not affect. Any of them still could be usen for mixin.

Can it be detected that they were mixins from the part of the blockchain that was pruned or no? Do you have more detailed information about your transaction structure?

I can't make much information from your nice powerpoints, sorry.

Transactions that lay before checkpoins and have pruned ring signatures could be spent, or could be not spent yet. No matter.
I have very similar transaction structure, and it refferes to other transaction's outputs with the same way as any CN - amount + index. So you know exactly from wich transaction your input's selected for mixins.
So answering to your question - yes, it may be detected, and there is no difference since both part of blockchain contatin as spent transactions, as unspent.

TY, Dr!

This makes a lot of sense

Are you thinking about using multisig?

[smooth]

Another great addition should be a database. Are there plans of implementing that yet?

Yes sure, database is important milestone.
I was actually curiouse if Monero devs finally gona release it? Because it's pretty boring work, and i'm not really want to do it myself:)

The ongoing work is in github under development.

[crypto_zoidberg]

TY, Dr!

This makes a lot of sense

Are you thinking about using multisig?

Yes, i'm thinking about this, but it's pretty questionable if it really usable ? Bytecoin implemented it, and seems that didn't get much attention or usage.

What do you think ?

[smooth]

TY, Dr!

This makes a lot of sense

Are you thinking about using multisig?

Yes, i'm thinking about this, but it's pretty questionable if it really usable ? Bytecoin implemented it, and seems that didn't get much attention or usage.

What do you think ?

It's important, but the version with no ring sigs is a disappointment. Some cryptography improvements are needed to do it right.

[iCEBREAKER]

Are you thinking about using multisig?

Yes, i'm thinking about this, but it's pretty questionable if it really usable ? Bytecoin implemented it, and seems that didn't get much attention or usage.

What do you think ?

It's important, but the version with no ring sigs is a disappointment. Some cryptography improvements are needed to do it right.

SuperNet will combine the privacy of BBR with the multisig of BTCD and the mini-blockchain of XCN.  Because cryptography improvements = magic.

Right?   

[crypto_zoidberg]

TY, Dr!

This makes a lot of sense

Are you thinking about using multisig?

Yes, i'm thinking about this, but it's pretty questionable if it really usable ? Bytecoin implemented it, and seems that didn't get much attention or usage.

What do you think ?

It's important, but the version with no ring sigs is a disappointment. Some cryptography improvements are needed to do it right.

Can you clarify ? with something more than vague phrases

[Pyrrhic]

TY, Dr!

This makes a lot of sense

Are you thinking about using multisig?

Yes, i'm thinking about this, but it's pretty questionable if it really usable ? Bytecoin implemented it, and seems that didn't get much attention or usage.

What do you think ?

I think its usable, but no rush. Maybe many months before needed, because supernet will give access to regular multisig. I think jl777 said it's only 1% fee in his paper, so not much of an issue yet.

Does Bytecoin have non-ring signature multisig? Maybe ring signature multisig would be possible for supernet?

It's important

what can it be used for, can multisig with ring signatures work?

[nuaaxuzhi]

Keep mining BBR  

[smooth]

TY, Dr!

This makes a lot of sense

Are you thinking about using multisig?

Yes, i'm thinking about this, but it's pretty questionable if it really usable ? Bytecoin implemented it, and seems that didn't get much attention or usage.

What do you think ?

It's important, but the version with no ring sigs is a disappointment. Some cryptography improvements are needed to do it right.

Can you clarify ? with something more than vague phrases

In the bytecoin implementation my understanding is that multisigs are always mix=0  (i.e. not deniable and traceable). I didn't entirely follow this explanation (terrible English) but it was somewhat discussed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=718834.msg8132998#msg8132998 . I think there might have been a post on the CN forum as well, not sure.

[S3MKi]

gogo bbr, i want to buy few supernet tokens.

[smooth]

what can it be used for, can multisig with ring signatures work?

Most important case is dispute-resolution for marketplaces. If you have a transaction that occurs where there is no dispute the buyer and seller can agree to release the proceeds to the seller. If they disagree a mediator can decide (2-of-3).

Another is a web wallet where both you and a central server have one key required to spend. Your coins are safe from both the server being hacked and your own computer being hacked. A third key can also be kept offline (held by you), which gives you access to your coins if the server disappears, but wouldn't be needed for routine transactions. Similar things can be done with two factor authentication. Again this would be 2-of-3.

I agree with "not a rush" but important for trying to build a larger economy. Right now none of these coins is use for anything but speculation.

[superplus]

TY, Dr!

This makes a lot of sense

Are you thinking about using multisig?

Yes, i'm thinking about this, but it's pretty questionable if it really usable ? Bytecoin implemented it, and seems that didn't get much attention or usage.

What do you think ?

it would be a requirement for open bazar usage

[unipool]

Network Hash Rate: 6.88 GH/sec
Pool cncoin.farm Hash Rate: 3.81 GH/sec
pool with more than 50% of the network hashrate
This is the right information?

Is bad for the network to be too centralised!!!

[OrientA]

Network Hash Rate: 6.88 GH/sec
Pool cncoin.farm Hash Rate: 3.81 GH/sec
pool with more than 50% of the network hashrate
This is the right information?

Is bad for the network to be too centralised!!!

So we need other pools or solo mining.

[jl777]

TY, Dr!

This makes a lot of sense

Are you thinking about using multisig?

Yes, i'm thinking about this, but it's pretty questionable if it really usable ? Bytecoin implemented it, and seems that didn't get much attention or usage.

What do you think ?

MGW uses multisig and it is critical for distributing the gateway function

[jl777]

TY, Dr!

This makes a lot of sense

Are you thinking about using multisig?

Yes, i'm thinking about this, but it's pretty questionable if it really usable ? Bytecoin implemented it, and seems that didn't get much attention or usage.

What do you think ?

I think its usable, but no rush. Maybe many months before needed, because supernet will give access to regular multisig. I think jl777 said it's only 1% fee in his paper, so not much of an issue yet.

Does Bytecoin have non-ring signature multisig? Maybe ring signature multisig would be possible for supernet?

It's important

what can it be used for, can multisig with ring signatures work?

no fees will be greater than 0.1%, actually 1/1024 other than for gambling stuff. That could be at the 1% level