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

[1blockologist]

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.

What's broken?  The blockchain was working fine before you showed up.  Many of us have been mining Boolberry from the beginning and off and on over the last couple of years without any "Repairs" from you.  Please explain what was broken.

All that seems to have happened since you showed up was a coordinated pump.  You've added some checkpoints and made the developer bounty disabled by default.  All of those are very simple changes and does not prove that you have the ability tio make the changes to the code that you lead people to believe.  You have also made a comment about changing the trading ticker as if that would have anything to do with the technology, price, or adoption of this coin.  You were promptly followed by the typical shills asking "when yobit" "translation bounty" etc...  This is all suspect and leads one to think that this is nothing more than an elaborate attempt to pump the price so some can dump their coins.  My last post regarding BBR was to say that I'll hold off judgment before deciding on whether this is a pump or a legitimate effort to develop the coin.  I do not think that this is a legitimate effort to develop the coin and because of that I will support CZ 100% and will not take part in any hostile takeover attempt that you are currently pursuing.  

That's where I stand.  You are free do do whatever you please and myself and others are free to call CZ's repository the official Boolberry version.

The blockchain works fine although less and less nodes are able to use it as the blockchain is stored in memory. all cryptonote coins have this flaw and Monero and Bytecoin are the only ones that have fixed it. The last two years would be fine, as you pointed out. The next would not.

You are associating a lot of unrelated things with presuppositions you already made about it being a pump with shills, which I also consider flawed presuppositions just like the one about the continued viability of boolberry's blockchain. This is the opposite of reserving judgement, it is entertaining to chat with you but my organizations only way to disprove most of the noise is to continue doing exactly what we are doing.

The only people that need to decide to run my code or not are the mining pool operators, until the network becomes more distributed. They dont seem to share the same views as you

We are having casual conversations while you are looking to our words as gospel to prove or disprove your faith based interest in the project. The trading symbol discussion isn't masquerading as a technological improvement. It is something we are going to do or not do, after letting the community know about it and gather input. Did you consider simply not conflating it with your other presuppositions?

As a long term investor, I've gained a higher amount of confidence in the project based on CZ's last few posts. He said he's working on an update and if we gauge his prior contributions to his recent statements, we can expect top quality work in a short period of time. A substantial update from CZ could bring this project back to 200k-400k+ range or a 10x-20x from it's current position with relative ease. If your primary goal is to increase the value of this crypto asset, it would be in the best interest of all parties to work with CZ and conform to his request for a code review. At least that way there is unity in the project and you can earn his and the communities trust.

If your team is actively working to improve the codebase, then working alongside the best Cryptonote developer in the field will only add more value to this project. CZ seems motivated to contribute here and why mess a good thing up? IMO, you've already accomplished a lot by motivating CZ to work on the project again. Anything else is an added bonus

That's right

There are already community members sending pull requests to my organization's repository. Zoidberg could just as easily be one of the community members reviewing code over there, we would even add him to the github organization! At the same time, we can also just send a big pull request later to his repository if we deem it necessary. Furthermore if he makes solo updates to his repository we can just rebase ours again with the latest updates. It is all a net benefit and thats how open source is supposed to work  

[ph4nt0m]

mbk's pool died again. No blocks found for 6+ hours. I'm done with it. Too much trouble. Switched one rig to solo mining and moved all other rigs to different algos.

[yassin54]

https://cointelegraph.com/news/monero-loses-darknet-market-in-apparent-exit-scam

[bittamak]

Development from multiple quarters would be certainly a good for the coin but taking CZ into confidence is needed as he has the complete understanding on the project...hopefully he will start accepting the code updates over a period of time once he see the quality code coming in....

[CryptoRambler]

From reddit

https://m.reddit.com/r/boolberry/comments/56mi7z/trying_to_build_boolberry_from_source_on_windows/

3
r/boolberry
Trying to build Boolberry from source on Windows
u/jaredm171321m
Hello all - for the record I am not a C++ expert so please bare with me. After much trouble I was able to install cmake 3.6.2, boost 1.62, and Visual Studio 14.0. Then I downloaded the Boolberry code from github and navigated to its directory. That is where I ran the following commands from a command prompt where I am attempting a build on a 64-bit machine:

mkdir build
cd build
cmake -DBOOST_ROOT=C:\boost\boost_1_62_0 -DBOOST_LIBRARYDIR=C:\boost\boost_1_62_0\lib64-msvc-14.0 -G "Visual Studio 14 2015 Win64" ..
msbuild.exe boolberry.sln /p:Configuration=Release
Okay so the first through third lines seem to run with no problems. However, the last build line produces an overwhelming 574 errors. Thus, I am unable to build the executables. As per the instructions in the Boolberry read me I was thinking I have my environment setup correctly since I am using "MSVC 2012 of later", "cmake 2.8.6 or later", and "Boost 1.53 (not 1.54) or later." Does anyone know how I can get this to work?

0–
Best
Write a comment

[ph4nt0m]

How are we supposed to fix those overwhelming errors having no clue what they could be? Downgrade to Boost 1.53, MSVC 2012 and try again. I guess cmake version doesn't matter.

[papa_lazzarou]

Hi guys,

This is just a reminder that all cryptonote coins are on topic in the Monero stackexchange.

There are not many questions about BBR, so come over and ask away...

I started these, if someone is able to answer them, please do.

https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/2302/how-does-boolberrys-wild-keccak-work

https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/2303/boolberrys-transaction-identification-by-prefix

[cryptodev2014]

Whats the current rate ?

[kohonez]

Hi guys, anyone mining BBR with R7 370 GPU? What's the hashrate for this card?

Thank you

[krjalone]

Hi guys, anyone mining BBR with R7 370 GPU? What's the hashrate for this card?

Thank you

Hi. Have only 380 GPU and clocked at 1265/1475 I get 1220 kh/s

[crypto_zoidberg]

Hi guys,

This is just a reminder that all cryptonote coins are on topic in the Monero stackexchange.

There are not many questions about BBR, so come over and ask away...

I started these, if someone is able to answer them, please do.

https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/2302/how-does-boolberrys-wild-keccak-work

https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/2303/boolberrys-transaction-identification-by-prefix

Hi!

About wild keccak you can read here:   http://boolberry.com/files/Block_Chain_Based_Proof_of_Work.pdf
About transaction identification by prefix:  http://www.slideshare.net/boolberry/boolberry-reduces-blockchain-bloat

[1blockologist]

Hi guys,

This is just a reminder that all cryptonote coins are on topic in the Monero stackexchange.

There are not many questions about BBR, so come over and ask away...

I started these, if someone is able to answer them, please do.

https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/2302/how-does-boolberrys-wild-keccak-work

https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/2303/boolberrys-transaction-identification-by-prefix

Hi!

About wild keccak you can read here:   http://boolberry.com/files/Block_Chain_Based_Proof_of_Work.pdf
About transaction identification by prefix:  http://www.slideshare.net/boolberry/boolberry-reduces-blockchain-bloat

yep good resources, and I've been looking at hash rates from different systems. There isn't a lot of information or calculators out for the Wild Keccak algorithm, it'll be more user friendly for people to be able to better guesstimate their hash rate and potential returns

[boolberry]

Hi CZ, thank you for your valuable input.

Are you currently supporting 1blocklologist's and Block chain Development's vision for BBR in the future?

 Is there anything that they should be working on right now, to make the smoothest transition to a new development team?

Thanks again for all of your great work!

At the moment i can say only that 1blocklologist didn't get my trust yet.
He rejected to contribute to BBR repository with my code review, he did't show competence in BBR code base, he didn't do any improvements yet.

For me it looks like a fake, so be careful.

Zoidberg.

Has your opinion changed? Although I have in the past questioned the 1% developer mining share at times when you have not been active I share your concerns in this case.
My current opinion is as follows:

Negatives:

1. Currently I consider the original GitHub repository to be official repository not the new BlockChainDevelopmentCompany repository. Zoidberg has proven a high level of understanding of the Boolberry codebase and is willing to review pull requests from new developers.
2. I don't like that 1blocklologist changed the Bitcointalk link on the r/boolberry sidebar to the new moderated thread which contains links to the new GitHub
3. I dislike the new BBR masternode plan
4. I dislike the plan to change the BBR ticker to XBR
5. I dislike all the Boolberry price target speculation. Talk without a significant demonstration of development ability reminds me too much of pump an dump tactics common in other coins

Positives:

1. It is nice to have interest from a new developer since you have not been active in a long time
2. Since you have not been active I like the proposal to remove the 1% developer mining reward (my mind could be changed if you started developing again)

[crypto_zoidberg]

Has your opinion changed? Although I have in the past questioned the 1% developer mining share at times when you have not been active I share your concerns in this case.

1. Currently I consider the original GitHub repository to be official for reasons similar to yours
2. I don't like that 1blocklologist changed the Bitcointalk link on r/monero to the new moderated thread which contains links to the new GitHub
3. I dislike the BBR masternode plan
4. I dislike the plan to change the BBR ticker to XBR
5. I dislike all the talk of Boolberry

Positives:

1. It is nice to have interest from a new developer since you have not been active in a long time
2. Since you have not been active I like the proposal to remove the 1% developer mining reward (my mind could be changed if you started developing again)

Ya, i changed my opinion, he started to insult me personally in chat, so i just ignore him.


Really hope to get back to BBR development before new year.

Zoidberg.

[boolberry]

Has your opinion changed? Although I have in the past questioned the 1% developer mining share at times when you have not been active I share your concerns in this case.

Negatives:

1. Currently I consider the original GitHub repository to be official repository not the new BlockChainDevelopmentCompany repository. Zoidberg has proven a high level of understanding of the Boolberry codebase and is willing to review pull requests from new developers.
2. I don't like that 1blocklologist changed the Bitcointalk link on the r/boolberry sidebar to the new moderated thread which contains links to the new GitHub
3. I dislike the new BBR masternode plan
4. I dislike the plan to change the BBR ticker to XBR
5. I dislike all the Boolberry price target speculation. Talk without a significant demonstration of development ability reminds me too much of pump an dump tactics common in other coins

Positives:

1. It is nice to have interest from a new developer since you have not been active in a long time
2. Since you have not been active I like the proposal to remove the 1% developer mining reward (my mind could be changed if you started developing again)

Ya, i changed my opinion, he started to insult me personally in chat, so i just ignore him.


Really hope to get back to BBR development before new year.

Zoidberg.

Thank you for your response. By private message he asked for control of my Twitter account which I did not provide.

https://twitter.com/BBRcurrency/status/788789638735405056

[1blockologist]

Has your opinion changed? Although I have in the past questioned the 1% developer mining share at times when you have not been active I share your concerns in this case.

1. Currently I consider the original GitHub repository to be official for reasons similar to yours
2. I don't like that 1blocklologist changed the Bitcointalk link on r/monero to the new moderated thread which contains links to the new GitHub
3. I dislike the BBR masternode plan
4. I dislike the plan to change the BBR ticker to XBR
5. I dislike all the talk of Boolberry

Positives:

1. It is nice to have interest from a new developer since you have not been active in a long time
2. Since you have not been active I like the proposal to remove the 1% developer mining reward (my mind could be changed if you started developing again)

Ya, i changed my opinion, he started to insult me personally in chat, so i just ignore him.


Really hope to get back to BBR development before new year.

Zoidberg.

Thats news to me actually, I haven't tried to reach you in a while so I wouldn't know you were ignoring me

I'll post the conversation for anyone interested, there was an insult levied so that's my fault. But I thought we got past that, every question I asked about the source code was stonewalled and I said the autistic egotistic developer trope is from last decade and that modern software development is a collaborative process.

There are enough other developers in the slack channel now that we have been able to reverse engineer and modify faster.

[heya77]

Has your opinion changed? Although I have in the past questioned the 1% developer mining share at times when you have not been active I share your concerns in this case.

Negatives:

1. Currently I consider the original GitHub repository to be official repository not the new BlockChainDevelopmentCompany repository. Zoidberg has proven a high level of understanding of the Boolberry codebase and is willing to review pull requests from new developers.
2. I don't like that 1blocklologist changed the Bitcointalk link on the r/boolberry sidebar to the new moderated thread which contains links to the new GitHub
3. I dislike the new BBR masternode plan
4. I dislike the plan to change the BBR ticker to XBR
5. I dislike all the Boolberry price target speculation. Talk without a significant demonstration of development ability reminds me too much of pump an dump tactics common in other coins

Positives:

1. It is nice to have interest from a new developer since you have not been active in a long time
2. Since you have not been active I like the proposal to remove the 1% developer mining reward (my mind could be changed if you started developing again)

Ya, i changed my opinion, he started to insult me personally in chat, so i just ignore him.


Really hope to get back to BBR development before new year.

Zoidberg.

Thank you for your response. By private message he asked for control of my Twitter account which I did not provide.

https://twitter.com/BBRcurrency/status/788789638735405056

Translation: Aeon is not coming back to Poloniex 

[1blockologist]

Hi CZ, thank you for your valuable input.

Are you currently supporting 1blocklologist's and Block chain Development's vision for BBR in the future?

 Is there anything that they should be working on right now, to make the smoothest transition to a new development team?

Thanks again for all of your great work!

At the moment i can say only that 1blocklologist didn't get my trust yet.
He rejected to contribute to BBR repository with my code review, he did't show competence in BBR code base, he didn't do any improvements yet.

For me it looks like a fake, so be careful.

Zoidberg.

Has your opinion changed? Although I have in the past questioned the 1% developer mining share at times when you have not been active I share your concerns in this case.
My current opinion is as follows:

Negatives:

1. Currently I consider the original GitHub repository to be official repository not the new BlockChainDevelopmentCompany repository. Zoidberg has proven a high level of understanding of the Boolberry codebase and is willing to review pull requests from new developers.
2. I don't like that 1blocklologist changed the Bitcointalk link on the r/boolberry sidebar to the new moderated thread which contains links to the new GitHub
3. I dislike the new BBR masternode plan
4. I dislike the plan to change the BBR ticker to XBR
5. I dislike all the Boolberry price target speculation. Talk without a significant demonstration of development ability reminds me too much of pump an dump tactics common in other coins

Positives:

1. It is nice to have interest from a new developer since you have not been active in a long time
2. Since you have not been active I like the proposal to remove the 1% developer mining reward (my mind could be changed if you started developing again)

Well I'm obligated to be defensive about this, so here are the answers:

All five of your negatives were directly related to CryptoZoidberg disappearing. You were the one that posted on Twitter that nobody should even be using Boolberry

August 28th:
"#Boolberry development is non existent. If you are looking for a #Monero alternative with #pruning and an active developer look at #Aeon." and this 100% contributed to my company's plans.

Boolberry development is no longer non existent, with a 100% correlation to my activity, and thats the modest version of that statement.

The masternode development hasn't even begun, we are working on everything else on the roadmap, and when we get that far we are open to input from the community.

The ticker symbol idea wasn't a plan, it was a comment. Lets have a discussion, this is a collaborative process.

We view Boolberry as undervalued. Taking the price target talk into conjunction with the masternode plan and you'd see that people wouldn't need to "dump" because it effectively turns Boolberry into an interest earning asset. We are also actively doing things necessary to get Boolberry on Bitsquare so that there are robust OTC markets that allow people to move a lot of Boolberry without affecting the order books on centralized exchanges.

We can submit pull requests at any time, so it is misguided to form an absolute opinion that because we haven't that we won't. We haven't done anything that would cause harm to the network and have only improved it, nothing we are doing will cause a fork, or any "battle" between developers. Leave amateur hour to bitcoin and ethereum. We have made a lot of improvements to the RPC server, for example.

Hope that helps!

[xmr_eric]

I was legitimately interested in this currency because it is one of the few CryptoNote based ones still in development. Then I read more about "1Blockologist" and I was turned off again. He seems like a scam artist, lots of big talk and little actual hard code to show for it. Easy commits mean nothing.

CryptoZoidberg, looking forward to you coming back!

[boolberry]

Hi CZ, thank you for your valuable input.

Are you currently supporting 1blocklologist's and Block chain Development's vision for BBR in the future?

 Is there anything that they should be working on right now, to make the smoothest transition to a new development team?

Thanks again for all of your great work!

At the moment i can say only that 1blocklologist didn't get my trust yet.
He rejected to contribute to BBR repository with my code review, he did't show competence in BBR code base, he didn't do any improvements yet.

For me it looks like a fake, so be careful.

Zoidberg.

Has your opinion changed? Although I have in the past questioned the 1% developer mining share at times when you have not been active I share your concerns in this case.
My current opinion is as follows:

Negatives:

1. Currently I consider the original GitHub repository to be official repository not the new BlockChainDevelopmentCompany repository. Zoidberg has proven a high level of understanding of the Boolberry codebase and is willing to review pull requests from new developers.
2. I don't like that 1blocklologist changed the Bitcointalk link on the r/boolberry sidebar to the new moderated thread which contains links to the new GitHub
3. I dislike the new BBR masternode plan
4. I dislike the plan to change the BBR ticker to XBR
5. I dislike all the Boolberry price target speculation. Talk without a significant demonstration of development ability reminds me too much of pump an dump tactics common in other coins

Positives:

1. It is nice to have interest from a new developer since you have not been active in a long time
2. Since you have not been active I like the proposal to remove the 1% developer mining reward (my mind could be changed if you started developing again)

Well I'm obligated to be defensive about this, so here are the answers:

All five of your negatives were directly related to CryptoZoidberg disappearing. You were the one that posted on Twitter that nobody should even be using Boolberry

August 28th:
"#Boolberry development is non existent. If you are looking for a #Monero alternative with #pruning and an active developer look at #Aeon." and this 100% contributed to my company's plans.

Boolberry development is no longer non existent, with a 100% correlation to my activity, and thats the modest version of that statement.

The masternode development hasn't even begun, we are working on everything else on the roadmap, and when we get that far we are open to input from the community.

The ticker symbol idea wasn't a plan, it was a comment. Lets have a discussion, this is a collaborative process.

We view Boolberry as undervalued. Taking the price target talk into conjunction with the masternode plan and you'd see that people wouldn't need to "dump" because it effectively turns Boolberry into an interest earning asset.

We can submit pull requests at any time, so it is misguided to form an absolute opinion that because we haven't that we won't.

Hope that helps!

You are correct that I made those comments about Boolberry development. I think any independent observer would agree with my conclusion (at that time) by observing Boolberry GitHub activity over the past year.

I am happy that new developers (including you) are interested in contributing now. I would like to see collaboration not a takeover attempt (I consider changing the sidebar link on r/boolberry to a new moderated bct thread under your control with links to a new GitHub page a hostile takeover attempt).

I am glad to hear you are open to input about the masternode plan (which I strongly dislike) and the ticker symbol comment is not part of a formal plan.

I stand by my comment about the price speculation talk being over the top based on the level of development activity you have demonstrated so far