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

[heskey]

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.

Great way to put it!

[1714026554]

1714026554

[1714026554]

1714026554

[1714026554]

1714026554

[1714026554]

1714026554

[1714026554]

1714026554

[sonoIO]

~ http://youtu.be/dBtmzY5gcO8?t=18m28s

He does make strong points! Tnx for shearing

[pt7]

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 ?

One concern with changing the name is that it will take away precious time from development, etc.  This will require changing websites/domain names, logos/documentation, wallet file names, etc.   Boolberry is an ok out-of-the box name like the above mentioned names.   Contrast this with MaidSafe - horrible name, but eventually the technology, management, and whether they can make their idea work will determine its success.

Edit: The name does improve in inverse proportion to the distance to the moon.   Just need to get past the escape velocity

[crypto_zoidberg]

I'll keep CLI working, sure. Also i could add recent transfer to cli wallet also, it's not really difficult now, if it make sense.

great to read, more functionality on the cli wallet is always welcome

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

I totally agree that mining is a bigger issue than the name, most people thinking just changing the name will help are not considering what a private gpu miner dumping all his thousands coins per day is doing to bbr value.

There are no private GPU miner anymore, Wolf's open source GPU  miner is much faster than cbuchners's. It's just a fact.

[crypto_zoidberg]

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

I guess in global view, comapred to XMR we have more honest distribution, at least because we have more fair emission curve:



And Monero also have issues with unfair distribution(but this is not current developers fault), due to hash optimizations, someone mined bitmonero in first days with about 10x times faster implementation(correct me if i wrong with numbers), read this dga post.

[eddywise]

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

I guess in global view, comapred to XMR we have more honest distribution, at least because we have more fair emission curve:



And Monero also have issues with unfair distribution(but this is not current developers fault), due to hash optimizations, someone mined bitmonero in first days with about 10x times faster implementation(correct me if i wrong with numbers), read this dga post.

I think the people does not find the benefits of boolberry,I have been in support of Boolberry

[ripplebtc]

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

If you think it's unfair at in the early time, you can buy cheap coins at this moment. The price is very fair. 

[eddywise]

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

If you think it's unfair at in the early time, you can buy cheap coins at this moment. The price is very fair. 

I do think the price is very fair

[btc-mike]

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

I guess in global view, comapred to XMR we have more honest distribution, at least because we have more fair emission curve:



And Monero also have issues with unfair distribution(but this is not current developers fault), due to hash optimizations, someone mined bitmonero in first days with about 10x times faster implementation(correct me if i wrong with numbers), read this dga post.

The Monero mining issues are acknowledged by smooth, one of the devs, in this post.

Both coins had small distribution issues in the beginning. Both coins fixed the issue and moved on. 

[smooth]

I guess in global view, comapred to XMR we have more honest distribution, at least because we have more fair emission curve:

I'm not sure why one curve would be any more fair than the other.

Does XCN have a more fair emission curve because it has a 10-year half life? Would 20-years be even better?

To me "fair" means that the rules are clearly defined and those same rules apply to everyone.

Different emissions curves might have practical advantages and disadvantages, but fairness is not among them.

[tifozi]

Price has been more than fair for greater than 3 weeks (the entry point I traded for some BBR first time).

In my opinion, the market is trying really hard to disrupt the progress, with arbitrary allegations and unfair aspersions on the project. Anyone looking to get into BBR has to wade through a lot of disinformation. Also even in this thread, I have read subtle references to artificial problems by the same actors, again and again. My personal opinion is for them to become more blatant transparent in their mockery and pretentiousness, rather than coming off concerned about problems that do not exist in BBR, since their other commercial interests are visible in plaintext via their post history.

It will be interesting to see who really among XMR and BBR are actually mining, with some statistics to back up, and display their daily loot for comparisons. The wolves crying foul about BBR mining will find that XMR mining is actually a lot worse with consumer or even rental resources. They are busy spreading propaganda about BBR on the other hand  

My primary CN coin is XMR, but all of this hatorade and shenanigans is why I recently picked up BBR. Some people know me from DRK and maybe other threads and I will recommend them to try getting into BBR as a good entry in cryptonote and not fall for any disinformation by a few that are passionate about their choices, but have adopted a wrong personal strategy that will harm them in longer term. I have seen this over many times. If you do pick up BBR, do not engage in bitter fights, but rather look to bring more friends over and let them know about this good project.

@zoidberg, are you looking to augment the team as far as core code is concerned? I'd love to see some good caliber coders join and push changes on github. It is still your project, just like taco leads XMR, but maybe there are some areas that might benefit from parallel forces contributing? I know you are not deliberately reticent, feel free to communicate at your comfort level.

[crypto_zoidberg]

I guess in global view, comapred to XMR we have more honest distribution, at least because we have more fair emission curve:

I'm not sure why one curve would be any more fair than the other.

Does XCN have a more fair emission curve because it has a 10-year half life? Would 20-years be even better?

To me "fair" means that the rules are clearly defined and those same rules apply to everyone.

Different emissions curves might have practical advantages and disadvantages, but fairness is not among them.

I agree about clearly defined rules, it's definately an indispensable part of fair distribution.

But also i think that faster emission makes less interest for late joining the currency - in long term view, so i think Bitcoin emission curve is closer to be fair.

And as you said, there are also practical advantages and disadvantages. But let this out of scope, say you launching new coin at this moment, what emission curve would you select for this ?

[Anotheranonlol]

I guess in global view, comapred to XMR we have more honest distribution, at least because we have more fair emission curve:

I'm not sure why one curve would be any more fair than the other.

Does XCN have a more fair emission curve because it has a 10-year half life? Would 20-years be even better?

To me "fair" means that the rules are clearly defined and those same rules apply to everyone.

Different emissions curves might have practical advantages and disadvantages, but fairness is not among them.

Disagree somehwat, there will be nuances over the way people intepret words like 'fair', but I think it can certainly apply to emission curve. Seems to me that the steeper the curve the smaller the pool of potential participants. Especially when this is a project in very much alpha status. I can't imagine bitcoin would of enjoyed quite the same success it had, if the vast majority of the rewards were already doled out from 2009-2011.

~50% of all XMR that will ever be in existence will be minted near 1 year from now which limits large pool of xmr holders to confines of the specific monero thread(s), in a subsection of this forum, subreddits and a few guys who heard about it trollbox of obscure exchanges.   Imagine if that same emission curve was even steeper, and instead 50% of the supply will be released in 1 month.. how about 1 week, or 1 hour..let's be even more retarded and say 1 minute. Half of all monero ever released in 1 minute; BUT the rules were clearly defined.. the [ann] thread was created explaining everything prior to the launch. (even though it may have done a half-assed  attempt at a launch before subsequently picked up and saved/taken over/relaunched/rebranded months later..which incidentally is a great cover for a little headstart)

Would you consider that fair? If you are fixed in this opinion curves themselves can't be fair or unfair- they don't have emotion or greed since they are some mathematical property, an algorithmic function who's nature is clearly defined--

 then would you consider the designer/implementer (and the guys who said- let's roll with it) unfair?-
being that they were the ones in a good position to profit proportionally corresponding to how 'unfair' as it was?

But.. in the same breath I agree you can't really eliminate the chance of early adopters getting rich by stretching things out. It's the nature of these things.  And ultimately the market will decide the fate. If market believes it's got a value they will buy. regardless of whether it was mined in an hour,a  day, a century or whatever

[smooth]

~50% of all XMR that will ever be in existence will be minted near 1 year from now which limits large pool of xmr holders to confines of the specific monero thread(s), in a subsection of this forum, subreddits and a few guys who heard about it trollbox of obscure exchanges.

(Technically it doesn't limit holders, just potential first holders, but I know what you are saying.)

We don't know how people will find out about Monero a year from now. I suspect either Monero will have been viewed as a failure by then, or the ways people find out about it will be significantly broader than those you listed (which approximately describes the situation today, not a year from now). Even then, that that is still only 50%, leaving 50% unissued.

Imagine if that same emission curve was even steeper, and instead 50% of the supply will be released in 1 month.. how about 1 week, or 1 hour..let's be even more retarded and say 1 minute. Half of all monero ever released in 1 minute; BUT the rules were clearly defined.. the [ann] thread was created explaining everything prior to the launch. (even though it may have done a half-assed  attempt at a launch before subsequently picked up and saved/taken over/relaunched/rebranded months later..which incidentally is a great cover for a little headstart)

I don't think these would be very effective launches, nor a good idea, but if clearly described up front, I can't really call it unfair.

Who is being mislead here? If you don't think issuing all the supply in the first month or first minute, then don't participate. But have you been treated unfairly? I don't think so.

[smooth]

I guess in global view, comapred to XMR we have more honest distribution, at least because we have more fair emission curve:

I'm not sure why one curve would be any more fair than the other.

Does XCN have a more fair emission curve because it has a 10-year half life? Would 20-years be even better?

To me "fair" means that the rules are clearly defined and those same rules apply to everyone.

Different emissions curves might have practical advantages and disadvantages, but fairness is not among them.

I agree about clearly defined rules, it's definately an indispensable part of fair distribution.

But also i think that faster emission makes less interest for late joining the currency - in long term view, so i think Bitcoin emission curve is closer to be fair.

Closer perhaps but it is still quite easy to argue that it is "unfair" if this is your definition of unfair. Bitcoin is about 75% mined and most people on the planet have no idea it even exists. Even most people in developed countries with good access to information and access to computers have barely heard of it if at all.

Now I don't happen to think that is "unfair" as I said earlier, but if your definition of fairness includes wide access to large amounts of newly issued coins to late adopters the Bitcoin's curve is also grossly unfair.

The thing is, you can't really know this in advance. When Bitcoin was created, nobody had any idea if it would ever be remotely successful or how long it would take. Likewise for newer cryptocurrencies. So if you are using the model of a fixed curve defined in advance and trying to make this curve track adoption (even in some loose sense )you almost can't help but miss the mark.

And as you said, there are also practical advantages and disadvantages. But let this out of scope, say you launching new coin at this moment, what emission curve would you select for this ?

I don't know. There are all sorts of considerations, and I'm sure you have considered many of them.

From a strategic point of view I might try something that is deliberately outside of the range already crowded with existing coins. I give the XCN guys credit for thinking a bit outside the box and trying that.

[crypto_zoidberg]

I guess in global view, comapred to XMR we have more honest distribution, at least because we have more fair emission curve:

I'm not sure why one curve would be any more fair than the other.

Does XCN have a more fair emission curve because it has a 10-year half life? Would 20-years be even better?

To me "fair" means that the rules are clearly defined and those same rules apply to everyone.

Different emissions curves might have practical advantages and disadvantages, but fairness is not among them.

I agree about clearly defined rules, it's definately an indispensable part of fair distribution.

But also i think that faster emission makes less interest for late joining the currency - in long term view, so i think Bitcoin emission curve is closer to be fair.

Closer perhaps but it is still quite easy to argue that it is "unfair" if this is your definition of unfair. Bitcoin is about 75% mined and most people on the planet have no idea it even exists. Even most people in developed countries with good access to information and access to computers have barely heard of it if at all.

Now I don't happen to think that is "unfair" as I said earlier, but if your definition of fairness includes wide access to large amounts of newly issued coins to late adopters the Bitcoin's curve is also grossly unfair.

The thing is, you can't really know this in advance. When Bitcoin was created, nobody had any idea if it would ever be remotely successful or how long it would take. Likewise for newer cryptocurrencies. So if you are using the model of a fixed curve defined in advance and trying to make this curve track adoption (even in some loose sense )you almost can't help but miss the mark.

And as you said, there are also practical advantages and disadvantages. But let this out of scope, say you launching new coin at this moment, what emission curve would you select for this ?

I don't know. There are all sorts of considerations, and I'm sure you have considered many of them.

From a strategic point of view I might try something that is deliberately outside of the range already crowded with existing coins. I give the XCN guys credit for thinking a bit outside the box and trying that.

Yeah, perfect emission curve should track adoption, but this seems to be impossible in real world.
After all, even if bitcoin emission curve is not perfectly "fair", and not exactly track adoption, it is still more fair than faster emission models, isn't it?

Anyway, i don't want to flame - i've got your opinion, and it's reasonable,  i'm personally stay with my point of view on this.

Agree about XCN, interesting project.

[smooth]

Yeah, perfect emission curve should track adoption, but this seems to be impossible in real world.
After all, even if bitcoin emission curve is not perfectly "fair", and not exactly track adoption, it is still more fair than faster emission models, isn't it?

For what it is, if Bitcoin's curve were faster, it would probably be worse. That is, Bitcoin being the first and not understood or recognized as valuable at all for quite a while. It took almost 2 years just to get to the 10,000 BTC = 1 pizza stage. By that time it was already about 20% mined which definitely seems kind of silly.

Today, new coins obviously get at least some adoption a lot faster than Bitcoin did. I don't know if this means that faster-than-Bitcoin curves are better for new coins. Maybe they should all be a lot slower. XCN might be on to something with their 10-year half life. Or maybe something like Bitcoin's curve is just right for a coin like XMR or BBR. Or maybe Bitcoins curve is right for Bitcoin and new coins should be faster.

Or maybe the idea of any fixed curve set in stone from the start is really not the best way to go at all. (But then if not, what should replace it?)

There is a lot we don't know about how these coins work, or even if they can work at all long term.

[crypto_zoidberg]

Yeah, perfect emission curve should track adoption, but this seems to be impossible in real world.
After all, even if bitcoin emission curve is not perfectly "fair", and not exactly track adoption, it is still more fair than faster emission models, isn't it?

For what it is, if Bitcoin's curve were faster, it would probably be worse. That is, Bitcoin being the first and not understood or recognized as valuable at all for quite a while. It took almost 2 years just to get to the 10,000 BTC = 1 pizza stage. By that time it was already about 20% mined which definitely seems kind of silly.

Today, new coins obviously get at least some adoption a lot faster than Bitcoin did. I don't know if this means that faster-than-Bitcoin curves are better for new coins. Maybe they should all be a lot slower. XCN might be on to something with their 10-year half life. Or maybe something like Bitcoin's curve is just right for a coin like XMR or BBR. Or maybe Bitcoins curve is right for Bitcoin and new coins should be faster.

Or maybe the idea of any fixed curve set in stone from the start is really not the best way to go at all. (But then if not, what should replace it?)

There is a lot we don't know about how these coins work, or even if they can work at all long term.

Hard to to disagree with that.

[teknohog]

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).

[eddywise]

I dont know why you guys talking about fair or unfair
I think nothing is fair to all of the 7 billion people on the world
Whatever you do, do not let all people feel fair,Won't make everyone happy
So,let us go on trust the boolberry,let them get out