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

[jl777]

 gee, some crazy guy just cleared the sell side of the orderbooks to .00045
cost me a whopping 1.5 BTC
when you can move the price 50%+ with such small amounts you cannot believe the price you see unless it is backed by big volumes

[dga]

Concur.  The only "problem" with the PoW was that it was new, and thus, went through the same private-optimization growing pains that every other new PoW does.  There are one or two little things I'd tweak in it in a second version, but they're tiny and Zoidberg knows about them.   It doesn't have any obvious flaws in terms of being DRAM bandwidth-limited as far as an ASIC implementation goes (asterisk).

(asterisk) - there are some two to four-year-out technology trends (stacked DRAM) that will probably make it feasible to make ASICs for all of the cryptonote family and most other memory-limited coins, but the same trends will probably show up *first* in Intel's CPUs and Nvidia's GPUs, and the manufacturing challenges will make them less attractive for something as niche as coins.  

(double asterisk) - probably doesn't matter anyway.  It people spend a billion bucks on hardware just to mine Boolberry, then the coin has won, and a ton of people are able to take advantage of its privacy features.  That'd be cool.

I know pretty much nothing about mining or harware, as I understand (perhaps incorrectly) SRAM will be cost prohibitive for building wild keccak asic, nobody has publicly found any time-memory-tradeoff & stacked DRAM like you say will be present in consumer level hw like nvidia pascal and volta 1st meaning any asic builder will be wasting their time and $, anyway no reason for such a tiny market cap.

SRAM will be cost-prohibitive unless Moore's law continues for another two decades, which pretty much would shock the daylights out of everybody.  The growth in the scratchpad is linear, which means it will be beaten eventually by the exponential growth in hardware, but its linear rate is fast right now, so it's rapidly growing to exceed what will affordably fit on chip.

Agreed re time/memory tradeoff.  It's pretty solid in that regard as far as I was able to tell.

And exactly re Pascal, and if you believe the rumors, the 2015 edition of Intel's Haswell.  It's tricky stuff.  It could be exactly the trick for the cryptonotes in the long run, but it still won't *eliminate* the latency / bandwidth limits to DRAM, just improve them a lot.

I'm pretty comfortable with both cryptonight (XMR) and wild keccak (BBR).  The GPU result on them both has played out about as expected, and barring cryptographic attacks that're beyond my level of sophistication, they should do about the same ASIC-wise -- some advantage, but not monstrous, to the point where I hesitate to guess whether or not it would be cost-effective to design one unless the scale became bitcoin-size.

[jl777]

Concur.  The only "problem" with the PoW was that it was new, and thus, went through the same private-optimization growing pains that every other new PoW does.  There are one or two little things I'd tweak in it in a second version, but they're tiny and Zoidberg knows about them.   It doesn't have any obvious flaws in terms of being DRAM bandwidth-limited as far as an ASIC implementation goes (asterisk).

(asterisk) - there are some two to four-year-out technology trends (stacked DRAM) that will probably make it feasible to make ASICs for all of the cryptonote family and most other memory-limited coins, but the same trends will probably show up *first* in Intel's CPUs and Nvidia's GPUs, and the manufacturing challenges will make them less attractive for something as niche as coins.  

(double asterisk) - probably doesn't matter anyway.  It people spend a billion bucks on hardware just to mine Boolberry, then the coin has won, and a ton of people are able to take advantage of its privacy features.  That'd be cool.

I know pretty much nothing about mining or harware, as I understand (perhaps incorrectly) SRAM will be cost prohibitive for building wild keccak asic, nobody has publicly found any time-memory-tradeoff & stacked DRAM like you say will be present in consumer level hw like nvidia pascal and volta 1st meaning any asic builder will be wasting their time and $, anyway no reason for such a tiny market cap.

SRAM will be cost-prohibitive unless Moore's law continues for another two decades, which pretty much would shock the daylights out of everybody.  The growth in the scratchpad is linear, which means it will be beaten eventually by the exponential growth in hardware, but its linear rate is fast right now, so it's rapidly growing to exceed what will affordably fit on chip.

Agreed re time/memory tradeoff.  It's pretty solid in that regard as far as I was able to tell.

And exactly re Pascal, and if you believe the rumors, the 2015 edition of Intel's Haswell.  It's tricky stuff.  It could be exactly the trick for the cryptonotes in the long run, but it still won't *eliminate* the latency / bandwidth limits to DRAM, just improve them a lot.

I'm pretty comfortable with both cryptonight (XMR) and wild keccak (BBR).  The GPU result on them both has played out about as expected, and barring cryptographic attacks that're beyond my level of sophistication, they should do about the same ASIC-wise -- some advantage, but not monstrous, to the point where I hesitate to guess whether or not it would be cost-effective to design one unless the scale became bitcoin-size.

Based on your expertise, what are the odds that some private miner is able to mine at 10x lower cost?
Short of access to massive amounts of free hardware, assuming it has to be paid for

[jl777]

Here is a scenario.
What if the crazy miner and financial attacker are the same guy(s)?
So, long time bitcoin guys have lots of hardware over the years, probably GPU farm that is not useful for bitcoin and its all incremental revenues anyway as enough profits generated to pay for all the hardware. So, if your only cost was electricity and you want to mine something and dump, it really costs nothing out of pocket.

Maybe this setup was there from early days so hundreds of thousands of BBR in this group's control. always seemed to have a lot of hashpower on BBR that wasnt really known where it was.

Based on illogical market behavior, I am leaning to this theory.

James

[smooth]

We just need to wait for XMR dataset to exceed 4GB and all the 32bit windows users getting crashes. At the rate of blockchain growth, that is but a few months away.

32 bit windows has a 2gb user address space not 4gb and hasn't worked with xmr for months. Don't wait for this.

yes, but 32 bits is 4 gb, so exceeding that creates even more issues
Is there objective analysis of the growth rate of XMR memory usage (not just compressed filesize but system RAM usage) based on time, tx vs. BBR?

You're not getting it. Monero does not work with 32 bit Windows and has not worked for months. A few people have complained about it, they have tried PAE and reported that it doesn't work. The only workaround that has been reported to work is migrating their wallet to a 64 bit OS.

XMR has succeeded despite not working on 32 bit Windows, so waiting for it to break on 32 bit Windows is clearly not going to help. Exceeding a 4 GB magic number won't matter on 64 bit Windows (though generally increasing RAM usage is a gradual issue), plus there will be a database implemented by that time anyway.

[smooth]

cost-effective to design one unless the scale became bitcoin-size.

Current bitcoin-size might work. Bitcoin size at the point when it became feasible to develop Bitcoin ASICs clearly will not work since the efficiency gain will be much much smaller.

[sonoIO]

We just need to wait for XMR dataset to exceed 4GB and all the 32bit windows users getting crashes. At the rate of blockchain growth, that is but a few months away.

32 bit windows has a 2gb user address space not 4gb and hasn't worked with xmr for months. Don't wait for this.

yes, but 32 bits is 4 gb, so exceeding that creates even more issues
Is there objective analysis of the growth rate of XMR memory usage (not just compressed filesize but system RAM usage) based on time, tx vs. BBR?

You're not getting it. Monero does not work with 32 bit Windows and has not worked for months. A few people have complained about it, they have tried PAE and reported that it doesn't work. The only workaround that has been reported to work is migrating their wallet to a 64 bit OS.

XMR has succeeded despite not working on 32 bit Windows, so waiting for it to break on 32 bit Windows is clearly not going to help. Exceeding a 4 GB magic number won't matter on 64 bit Windows (though generally increasing RAM usage is a gradual issue), plus there will be a database implemented by that time anyway.

XMR is currently successful in speculation, no one is using it for daily payments. It may be less successful when average Joe does try to use it on his average comp.

[dga]

Based on your expertise, what are the odds that some private miner is able to mine at 10x lower cost?
Short of access to massive amounts of free hardware, assuming it has to be paid for

Interpreting "10x lower cost" as "on the same hardware" - almost zero.  I won't say zero, but almost zero.  I've tried hard - really hard - to find some kind of 10x trick in Wild Keccak and haven't.  That's no guarantee that there's not one, but I'd be surprised if someone could do *that* much better.  (My own efforts resulted in a CPU miner that's about the same as what wolf and otila did, and the code is nearly identical).  1.3x?  I'd believe it in a heartbeat.

The weird thing is that BBR is still almost-profitable on AWS if you have GPU and CPU miners running that are in the same range as wolf0's but tuned to the AWS hardware.  It's not a great choice CPU, but it's still a great choice GPU.  But it's at that level of profitability where it can go from profitable to a loss very easily with some diff/market shifts.  If you own the hardware, though, it's great (I'm running it on 23 GPUs and need to see what I can learn from wolf's new release. :-).

This suggests to me that what was really going on was that the technical barrier to entry was too high - most BBR mining was still solo, the pool miners weren't quite as good as the solo ones, and so if someone with a large enough farm decided to own things, they'd have been able to control a pretty large fraction of the mining, in a reasonably profitable way.  It's not normal for a coin to be AWS-profitable, really, so from that I conclude that something else is preventing lots of people from jumping in and mining it.  I think it's the challenge of solo mining.

To put it in perspective - I launched 400 MH/s on AWS last week to see if I could sneak in some mining when the diff looked good.  It cost me $28/hour -- and was 1/5th the total hash of the network.  I decided it wasn't worth it (I think that I ended up earning about $20 for way too much heartburn of managing nodes), but it was entirely possible.  If I were trying to spend USD to buy BBR, that's what I'd do instead of buying it on the market.

[smooth]

We just need to wait for XMR dataset to exceed 4GB and all the 32bit windows users getting crashes. At the rate of blockchain growth, that is but a few months away.

32 bit windows has a 2gb user address space not 4gb and hasn't worked with xmr for months. Don't wait for this.

yes, but 32 bits is 4 gb, so exceeding that creates even more issues
Is there objective analysis of the growth rate of XMR memory usage (not just compressed filesize but system RAM usage) based on time, tx vs. BBR?

You're not getting it. Monero does not work with 32 bit Windows and has not worked for months. A few people have complained about it, they have tried PAE and reported that it doesn't work. The only workaround that has been reported to work is migrating their wallet to a 64 bit OS.

XMR has succeeded despite not working on 32 bit Windows, so waiting for it to break on 32 bit Windows is clearly not going to help. Exceeding a 4 GB magic number won't matter on 64 bit Windows (though generally increasing RAM usage is a gradual issue), plus there will be a database implemented by that time anyway.

XMR is currently successful in speculation, no one is using it for daily payments. It may be less successful when average Joe does try to use it on his average comp.

I agree with you. I was just disagreeing with the "wait for it to break on 32 bit." That's already happened. In fact what is going to happen in the future is not that it will break, but that 32 bit will get fixed by the switch to a database.

[sonoIO]

Quazar and Fantom coin got listed on hitbtc. It seems like a perspective exchange and BBR should be listed there. Voting is on https://hitbtc.com/vote
They seem to have soft hart for CryptoNotes

EDIT: Maybe i spoke too soon, was not aware about the yet unexplained incident at hitbtc from few days ago

[jl777]

Based on your expertise, what are the odds that some private miner is able to mine at 10x lower cost?
Short of access to massive amounts of free hardware, assuming it has to be paid for

Interpreting "10x lower cost" as "on the same hardware" - almost zero.  I won't say zero, but almost zero.  I've tried hard - really hard - to find some kind of 10x trick in Wild Keccak and haven't.  That's no guarantee that there's not one, but I'd be surprised if someone could do *that* much better.  (My own efforts resulted in a CPU miner that's about the same as what wolf and otila did, and the code is nearly identical).  1.3x?  I'd believe it in a heartbeat.

The weird thing is that BBR is still almost-profitable on AWS if you have GPU and CPU miners running that are in the same range as wolf0's but tuned to the AWS hardware.  It's not a great choice CPU, but it's still a great choice GPU.  But it's at that level of profitability where it can go from profitable to a loss very easily with some diff/market shifts.  If you own the hardware, though, it's great (I'm running it on 23 GPUs and need to see what I can learn from wolf's new release. :-).

This suggests to me that what was really going on was that the technical barrier to entry was too high - most BBR mining was still solo, the pool miners weren't quite as good as the solo ones, and so if someone with a large enough farm decided to own things, they'd have been able to control a pretty large fraction of the mining, in a reasonably profitable way.  It's not normal for a coin to be AWS-profitable, really, so from that I conclude that something else is preventing lots of people from jumping in and mining it.  I think it's the challenge of solo mining.

To put it in perspective - I launched 400 MH/s on AWS last week to see if I could sneak in some mining when the diff looked good.  It cost me $28/hour -- and was 1/5th the total hash of the network.  I decided it wasn't worth it (I think that I ended up earning about $20 for way too much heartburn of managing nodes), but it was entirely possible.  If I were trying to spend USD to buy BBR, that's what I'd do instead of buying it on the market.

Aha!
then this is the answer. There are a ton of AWS guys and if there is any profits available, they are maxing out instances. If you can get 30% improvement on top of even 20% margin, then start 100,000 instances and make $1000 per day. Not bad for running some shell scripts.
In ripple when they had WCG mining, this was what happened. About a dozen guys ended up with vast majority of the XRP mined. most were using amazon. There is also secondary market on server time and bulk discounts, etc. So, even without any magic miner if AWS is profitable, then that will totally dominate ANY non-AWS mining.

As soon as XRP mining became unprofitable for AWS, then the volumes dropped dramatically. But if it wasnt profitable for AWS, it wasnt worth it for normal peoples, so ripple just cancelled the whole program.

So, for BBR, if anyway possible (other than crazy low price!) to make AWS not profitable, this daily dumping (which is necessary to make sure AWS is profit for the miners) will end

James

[jl777]

We just need to wait for XMR dataset to exceed 4GB and all the 32bit windows users getting crashes. At the rate of blockchain growth, that is but a few months away.

32 bit windows has a 2gb user address space not 4gb and hasn't worked with xmr for months. Don't wait for this.

yes, but 32 bits is 4 gb, so exceeding that creates even more issues
Is there objective analysis of the growth rate of XMR memory usage (not just compressed filesize but system RAM usage) based on time, tx vs. BBR?

You're not getting it. Monero does not work with 32 bit Windows and has not worked for months. A few people have complained about it, they have tried PAE and reported that it doesn't work. The only workaround that has been reported to work is migrating their wallet to a 64 bit OS.

XMR has succeeded despite not working on 32 bit Windows, so waiting for it to break on 32 bit Windows is clearly not going to help. Exceeding a 4 GB magic number won't matter on 64 bit Windows (though generally increasing RAM usage is a gradual issue), plus there will be a database implemented by that time anyway.

XMR is currently successful in speculation, no one is using it for daily payments. It may be less successful when average Joe does try to use it on his average comp.

I agree with you. I was just disagreeing with the "wait for it to break on 32 bit." That's already happened. In fact what is going to happen in the future is not that it will break, but that 32 bit will get fixed by the switch to a database.

XMR not big success yet
My point is, does BBR have an advantage about blockchain size? If so, what is the advantage. Communicate this. If XMR blockchain size is a trainwreck waiting to happen, then people will seek alternatives. If it isnt, then BBR has no big advantage over XMR

[crypto_zoidberg]

Good news.

We now have nice installer for Windows.
http://boolberry.com/downloads.html

[dga]

Based on your expertise, what are the odds that some private miner is able to mine at 10x lower cost?
Short of access to massive amounts of free hardware, assuming it has to be paid for

Interpreting "10x lower cost" as "on the same hardware" - almost zero.  I won't say zero, but almost zero.  I've tried hard - really hard - to find some kind of 10x trick in Wild Keccak and haven't.  That's no guarantee that there's not one, but I'd be surprised if someone could do *that* much better.  (My own efforts resulted in a CPU miner that's about the same as what wolf and otila did, and the code is nearly identical).  1.3x?  I'd believe it in a heartbeat.

The weird thing is that BBR is still almost-profitable on AWS if you have GPU and CPU miners running that are in the same range as wolf0's but tuned to the AWS hardware.  It's not a great choice CPU, but it's still a great choice GPU.  But it's at that level of profitability where it can go from profitable to a loss very easily with some diff/market shifts.  If you own the hardware, though, it's great (I'm running it on 23 GPUs and need to see what I can learn from wolf's new release. :-).

This suggests to me that what was really going on was that the technical barrier to entry was too high - most BBR mining was still solo, the pool miners weren't quite as good as the solo ones, and so if someone with a large enough farm decided to own things, they'd have been able to control a pretty large fraction of the mining, in a reasonably profitable way.  It's not normal for a coin to be AWS-profitable, really, so from that I conclude that something else is preventing lots of people from jumping in and mining it.  I think it's the challenge of solo mining.

To put it in perspective - I launched 400 MH/s on AWS last week to see if I could sneak in some mining when the diff looked good.  It cost me $28/hour -- and was 1/5th the total hash of the network.  I decided it wasn't worth it (I think that I ended up earning about $20 for way too much heartburn of managing nodes), but it was entirely possible.  If I were trying to spend USD to buy BBR, that's what I'd do instead of buying it on the market.

Aha!
then this is the answer. There are a ton of AWS guys and if there is any profits available, they are maxing out instances. If you can get 30% improvement on top of even 20% margin, then start 100,000 instances and make $1000 per day. Not bad for running some shell scripts.
In ripple when they had WCG mining, this was what happened. About a dozen guys ended up with vast majority of the XRP mined. most were using amazon. There is also secondary market on server time and bulk discounts, etc. So, even without any magic miner if AWS is profitable, then that will totally dominate ANY non-AWS mining.

As soon as XRP mining became unprofitable for AWS, then the volumes dropped dramatically. But if it wasnt profitable for AWS, it wasnt worth it for normal peoples, so ripple just cancelled the whole program.

So, for BBR, if anyway possible (other than crazy low price!) to make AWS not profitable, this daily dumping (which is necessary to make sure AWS is profit for the miners) will end

James

More people mining using hardware they already own.  As I said - it's really unusual for AWS to be profitable in the long term for a coin.  It shouldn't be - the costs are really high compared to hardware already purchased.  I got chicken of the margins and reverted to just my home gear (but even there, I have to sell some -- I'm spending $250 / month on power), but it would certainly change the dynamics of who is mining and selling.

I subscribe in general to the boring economics viewpoint that it's all about supply and demand in the big picture, but that ignores the potential for market manipulation when the scale is as relatively small as it is in BBR (per that earlier post of moving the market 50% with 1.5 BTC of buys).

[Anotheranonlol]

SRAM will be cost-prohibitive unless Moore's law continues for another two decades, which pretty much would shock the daylights out of everybody.  The growth in the scratchpad is linear, which means it will be beaten eventually by the exponential growth in hardware, but its linear rate is fast right now, so it's rapidly growing to exceed what will affordably fit on chip.

Agreed re time/memory tradeoff.  It's pretty solid in that regard as far as I was able to tell.

And exactly re Pascal, and if you believe the rumors, the 2015 edition of Intel's Haswell.  It's tricky stuff.  It could be exactly the trick for the cryptonotes in the long run, but it still won't *eliminate* the latency / bandwidth limits to DRAM, just improve them a lot.

I'm pretty comfortable with both cryptonight (XMR) and wild keccak (BBR).  The GPU result on them both has played out about as expected, and barring cryptographic attacks that're beyond my level of sophistication, they should do about the same ASIC-wise -- some advantage, but not monstrous, to the point where I hesitate to guess whether or not it would be cost-effective to design one unless the scale became bitcoin-size.

Thanks for answer, I definitely feel more comfortable with cryptonote than with scrypt, x11 etc

XMR not big success yet
My point is, does BBR have an advantage about blockchain size? If so, what is the advantage. Communicate this. If XMR blockchain size is a trainwreck waiting to happen, then people will seek alternatives. If it isnt, then BBR has no big advantage over XMR

It does- see http://boolberry.org/files/Boolberry_Reduces_Blockchain_Bloat.pdf
XMR blockchain size is not quite a trainwreck waiting to happen, all of these cryptonote coins will have some scaling issues due to their nature.
XMR have fixed some issues early on reducing bloat from pools, but it's designed in a different manner to boolberry that doesn't allow them to do what BBR is doing, they are moving to embedded db instead

There are other things to consider too, personally I think XMR emission is more poorly thought out, unfairly rewarding early users too much. Of course for now early adopters will be happy for this but I think that can bite them in the foot a little later.

[tifozi]

I am rather dismissive of crazy miner theories. We have some of the best guys creating, enhancing and optimizing miners to level the playing field. Those who want to financially attack the coin, I guess it can be carried on only for so long, just like the same guys cannot keep buying over and over.

James, it is good to see your support We were wondering who was setting up those walls. I was actually kinda hoping your order gets filled mainly because the attacker would have to start looking at other alternatives. You had a great chance to wipe this guy off as he put the wall up for quite a long time yesterday. Did you miss it?

Nothing is a substitute for a growing user base. Word of mouth to your friends on the forums etc can go a long way as publicly posting the technical superiority of BBR has been met with open resistance and deliberate FUD. I would also go about buying more once I see good new blood and support to keep things even. I am not interested in any pumps whatsoever.

With the plans of rebranding, this is becoming much easier to get your friends to support I am an XMR miner from the second it was released. I never mined BBR just because I couldn't accept the name and I never kept up with the progress until I started seeing the combats and mud slinging and I just didn't buy the FUD. I am glad I didn't. Most folks don't know what a gem tacotime is. I once talked to him about some technical questions that would have helped someone else at his expense, and he didn't hesitate to offer help. That is why I held on to XMR even though I didn't like the aggressive competition with every other coin from the majority in monero. Cryptos really don't have to be this way. What if I am a merchant and I want to accept upto 3 privacy focussed coins? Do I really need to pick sides? What if I lose a customer because he has only one type of coin and he can't go through the conversion process?

I see similar traits and abilities in zoidberg and I knew there is good support brewing here because of it.

CUDA miner with stratum support - Github link in this post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=693118.msg8239797#msg8239797

Good stuff!!

[jl777]

big buy wall!
30 BTC
BBR to 'da moon!!

James

[Anotheranonlol]

big buy wall!
30 BTC
BBR to 'da moon!!

James

Now increased to 45 BTC  
This orderbook starts to look more healthy
should fatten up more shortly and give donnie dumper a little more to chew through

[clintar]

If anyone wants an alias, pm me and I'll add you to the list at my pool.

[othe]

XMR not big success yet
My point is, does BBR have an advantage about blockchain size? If so, what is the advantage. Communicate this. If XMR blockchain size is a trainwreck waiting to happen, then people will seek alternatives. If it isnt, then BBR has no big advantage over XMR

It does- see http://boolberry.org/files/Boolberry_Reduces_Blockchain_Bloat.pdf
XMR blockchain size is not quite a trainwreck waiting to happen, all of these cryptonote coins will have some scaling issues due to their nature.
XMR have fixed some issues early on reducing bloat from pools, but it's designed in a different manner to boolberry that doesn't allow them to do what BBR is doing, they are moving to embedded db instead

There are other things to consider too, personally I think XMR emission is more poorly thought out, unfairly rewarding early users too much. Of course for now early adopters will be happy for this but I think that can bite them in the foot a little later.

BBR blockchain is smaller because there are less transactions and its younger.

But as already calculated 100x times, the Blockchain growth is not really a problem for Cryptonote coins, if we would process as much tx as Bitcoin it would grow 5.5x faster and thats no problem if Moores law doesn't totally break.

Keep in mind, its bigger because it has more in and outputs, if darksend, coinjoin or whatever is used more the blockchain growths about the same.