...
As we consider ourselves the stewards
...
I'm keeping a watching brief.
As far as I'm concerned BBR is still CZ's coin until
he declares otherwise.
CZ built this coin from the ground up and has extensive knowledge of the Cryptonote protocol. His credentials are not in question and has proved himself. His request that you prove your competence with the codebase and contribute to the BBR repository seems entirely reasonable.
CZ is also right to suggest people be wary of downloading third party BBR builds that are not endorsed by him.
Whilst I've got no reason to doubt your integrity or intentions. The fact is this project has been going for over 2 years. Primarily on the strength of CZ work and talent (along with contributions a couple of others). You've been here for around a month.
Earning CZ's trust/ goodwill would go a long way towards helping you earn your stripes and inspiring trust others.
Yes, let's dissect that statement
We never created third party BBR builds, people ask us every day for binaries to install, yet people can only build from source, and CZ even said build from source.
Since we:
A) don't have builds and
B) nobody knows who else he could have been talking about
Can you see how that could be an intentionally misleading statement solely to sway the confidence of less tech savvy investors?
Next, CZ was nowhere to be found, and one mining pool had 75% of the network, while suffering outtages, causing the network to fork occasionally. Given how blockchains work, you should realize that this means it was NOBODY'S coin. Anyone that wanted to introduce changes to the way the network functioned could have done it at any time. We came to repair the network and improve it.
CZ has appeared from nowhere with statements that are random non sequiturs that are largely reactionary to our existence. Our existence has been benign in the most pessimistic view, and positive for the network in neutral and optimistic views.
Our analysts considered the possibility that there would be pushback from the original dev - despite there being zero indication he was even alive - and we took pre-emptive measures to avoid doing things that would be seen as provocative given the fickle nature of consensus in blockchain networks. We were and still are open to collaborating with CZ
Blockchains are a decentralized networks, a distinct contrast from a corporation or government, so the mere existence of sycophants leaning to a fearless leader for guidance about "his coin" simply gives you the worst of both worlds.
Its the miners coin. Always.
If someone had altered MBK's mining pool to completely change everything about Boolberry, including block reward, issuance schedule, anything, it would have not mattered what CZ's retroactive opinion was.
You all should be able to make these objective conclusions too, independently without the guidance of a former developer
Other contributors of the project are working with me already. I went through the github commits and contacted several of the other contributors a month ago, and this has helped revive interest in the project and accelerated our code reviews. This really isn't the battle of ego that one influential person may be making it out to be. In our world, the age of egotistic blockchain savants are over. Boolberry is broken and we are repairing it with a level of professionalism more in line with the broader software industry. You'll have to wait for more code updates if thats what you want to see for your comfort level.
