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

[criptix]

hi everyone,
im rather a silent investor im bbr, but i really like how the naming process is done now.
much more transparent and way more community integration.


this will be a strong basis for the future.


btw. i was thinking of a name in direction of latin or greek too.
need to research a bit more

[visual111]

has dingleberry been suggested?

[dgmon]

Therefore, the community started asking a lot of questions, such as: “when you stop working will you still get the 5 percent or less? Can this ‘less’ mean ‘zero’?” If another developer takes your place will you still collect the 5 percent or less and the new developer get additional 5 percent or less taxes, effectively now 10 percent at most? Will anyone wish to invest their money in a coin that even the creators does not know what money to take out of it?

Well, I would like to know the answer to this.

As for the naming issue, it does not appear that there is consensus on a name change (looking at the unofficial poll).  I suggest a moratorium on the issue (no discussion about it in this thread, no possible renaming of the coin) for 6 months.

[sonoIO]

Good point. I might have missed the explanation behind keeping it 64 bit. Maybe mbk can assist.

reciprocal_value64 needs __int128 support from compiler.
Sure miner could be made to work without __int128 on 32bit targets, by using 64bit modulus operation, but who uses 32bit systems nowadays?  I have had 64bit since 2006..

There are quite of those machines in the developing world i suppose

[windjc]

Therefore, the community started asking a lot of questions, such as: “when you stop working will you still get the 5 percent or less? Can this ‘less’ mean ‘zero’?” If another developer takes your place will you still collect the 5 percent or less and the new developer get additional 5 percent or less taxes, effectively now 10 percent at most? Will anyone wish to invest their money in a coin that even the creators does not know what money to take out of it?

Well, I would like to know the answer to this.

As for the naming issue, it does not appear that there is consensus on a name change (looking at the unofficial poll).  I suggest a moratorium on the issue (no discussion about it in this thread, no possible renaming of the coin) for 6 months.

I have heard some other people saying they would like clarification on some of these points as well. I will speak with CZ and make sure we get something out with our schedule of updates and releases detailing all this. As many more people are likely going to be joining the BBR community soon, its important that we as a community provide clear and concise information on all things BBR related.

[Hotmetal]

I have heard some other people saying they would like clarification on some of these points as well. I will speak with CZ and make sure we get something out with our schedule of updates and releases detailing all this. As many more people are likely going to be joining the BBR community soon, its important that we as a community provide clear and concise information on all things BBR related.

That is great news. The sooner its sorted out (one way or the other), the sooner BBR can take over the world. amirite?

[mitache365]

who is putting this big buy orders ?

[dvdrewritable]

who is putting this big buy orders ?

There aren't that many huge buy orders now, so that will just be observant accumulators are trying to lock their orders in, in anticipation.
I would fully expect the buy orders to rise in the coming weeks considering it's still grossly undervalued.

I'm personally waiting for some funds to be freed up.

But I suppose it's still attractive to notice that XMR buy support is only 3% of total current supply, whilst BBR is at 20%.

[S3MKi]

who is putting this big buy orders ?

klee

[klee]

who is putting this big buy orders ?

klee

no, really

[dga]

Good point. I might have missed the explanation behind keeping it 64 bit. Maybe mbk can assist.

reciprocal_value64 needs __int128 support from compiler.
Sure miner could be made to work without __int128 on 32bit targets, by using 64bit modulus operation, but who uses 32bit systems nowadays?  I have had 64bit since 2006..

There are quite of those machines in the developing world i suppose

Doesn't matter in practice - for mining, no older 32 bit machine will be energy profitable, even at developing world energy costs.

It's more important for the wallet, but even that's probably stretching it a little.

[jwinterm]

Good point. I might have missed the explanation behind keeping it 64 bit. Maybe mbk can assist.

reciprocal_value64 needs __int128 support from compiler.
Sure miner could be made to work without __int128 on 32bit targets, by using 64bit modulus operation, but who uses 32bit systems nowadays?  I have had 64bit since 2006..

There are quite of those machines in the developing world i suppose

Doesn't matter in practice - for mining, no older 32 bit machine will be energy profitable, even at developing world energy costs.

It's more important for the wallet, but even that's probably stretching it a little.

I just happen to be using one of the premade mining distros (PiMP in this case), and apparently they chose to build it from 32 bit debian. The processor is a quad-core AMD. I haven't had any problems building bfgminer 4.7, several sph-sgminer varieties, or lucasjones cpuminer-multi (which can mine with all four cores of course). It's not a big deal, I was just trying to figure out what the problem was.

[sonoIO]

Good point. I might have missed the explanation behind keeping it 64 bit. Maybe mbk can assist.

reciprocal_value64 needs __int128 support from compiler.
Sure miner could be made to work without __int128 on 32bit targets, by using 64bit modulus operation, but who uses 32bit systems nowadays?   I have had 64bit since 2006..

There are quite of those machines in the developing world i suppose

Doesn't matter in practice - for mining, no older 32 bit machine will be energy profitable, even at developing world energy costs.

It's more important for the wallet, but even that's probably stretching it a little.

A lot more machines could run daemon and wallet e.g. from bootable USB with hardened OS and maybe VPN supplement, such as Tails. Wouldn't be good to exclude anyone, and it will make a difference on the network value if developing world is waited for 1-3 years while they renew machines. Now the daemon could be run and they will renew eventually, quicker if they find a need

[twistelaar]

expectations of this coin? thanks

[mitache365]

expectations of this coin? thanks

north!

[dga]

Good point. I might have missed the explanation behind keeping it 64 bit. Maybe mbk can assist.

reciprocal_value64 needs __int128 support from compiler.
Sure miner could be made to work without __int128 on 32bit targets, by using 64bit modulus operation, but who uses 32bit systems nowadays?  I have had 64bit since 2006..

There are quite of those machines in the developing world i suppose

Doesn't matter in practice - for mining, no older 32 bit machine will be energy profitable, even at developing world energy costs.

It's more important for the wallet, but even that's probably stretching it a little.

I just happen to be using one of the premade mining distros (PiMP in this case), and apparently they chose to build it from 32 bit debian. The processor is a quad-core AMD. I haven't had any problems building bfgminer 4.7, several sph-sgminer varieties, or lucasjones cpuminer-multi (which can mine with all four cores of course). It's not a big deal, I was just trying to figure out what the problem was.

For the CPU, one of the core optimizations requires a 64 bit operation (actually, two) in every step of the inner loop.  You could remove this optimization, but it would further place you at a disadvantage.

XMR has a similar optimization in it that also makes 32 bit ugly.

(Both use 64 bit multiply-high operations.  BBR also uses a standard 64x64->64 multiply.)

In some ways, this is actually more about the design of the PoW for each of these:  They were specifically designed to use 64 bit operations on modern CPUs to reduce the advantage of GPUs and ASICs.

[windjc]

ATTENTION! FINAL BOOLBERRY REBRANDING VOTE HERE: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=801652.msg9010361#msg9010361

Good luck!

Jon

[Este Nuno]

I was going to post this in the vote thread, but I read the OP again and I assume you want to keep that thread clear of anything but voting.

aureum sounds like a portmanteau of auroracoin and etherium 

This is very shortsighted thinking. Auroracoin is a barley meaningless footnote in the history of cryptocurrencies. You're thinking about this from a very narrow angle. Even if what you say has meaning, it's only meaningful to maybe 5000/7,000,000,000 people.

What is an acceptable percentage of people that dismiss BBR because of the name? 1%? 10%? 30%? People are judgmental. That's doesn't make them right, but that's reality.

The question is, what are the goals of the project? Monero people seem to think that they have the potential to become the global provider of dark liquidity. I think it's safe to say that if that's a realistic assessment, then BBR also as the potential to fill that role. And in that context, is Boolberry going to be a name that's widely accepted?

Boolberry is a good name. But is it the right name?

[windjc]

I was going to post this in the vote thread, but I read the OP again and I assume you want to keep that thread clear of anything but voting.

aureum sounds like a portmanteau of auroracoin and etherium 

This is very shortsighted thinking. Auroracoin is a barley meaningless footnote in the history of cryptocurrencies. You're thinking about this from a very narrow angle. Even if what you say has meaning, it's only meaningful to maybe 5000/7,000,000,000 people.

What is an acceptable percentage of people that dismiss BBR because of the name? 1%? 10%? 30%? People are judgmental. That's doesn't make them right, but that's reality.

The question is, what are the goals of the project? Monero people seem to think that they have the potential to become the global provider of dark liquidity. I think it's safe to say that if that's a realistic assessment, then BBR also as the potential to fill that role. And in that context, is Boolberry going to be a name that's widely accepted?

Boolberry is a good name. But is it the right name?

You can post this in the vote thread. Its a place for discussion between the two names. So its on topic.

[Este Nuno]

I was going to post this in the vote thread, but I read the OP again and I assume you want to keep that thread clear of anything but voting.

aureum sounds like a portmanteau of auroracoin and etherium 

This is very shortsighted thinking. Auroracoin is a barley meaningless footnote in the history of cryptocurrencies. You're thinking about this from a very narrow angle. Even if what you say has meaning, it's only meaningful to maybe 5000/7,000,000,000 people.

What is an acceptable percentage of people that dismiss BBR because of the name? 1%? 10%? 30%? People are judgmental. That's doesn't make them right, but that's reality.

The question is, what are the goals of the project? Monero people seem to think that they have the potential to become the global provider of dark liquidity. I think it's safe to say that if that's a realistic assessment, then BBR also as the potential to fill that role. And in that context, is Boolberry going to be a name that's widely accepted?

Boolberry is a good name. But is it the right name?

You can post this in the vote thread. Its a place for discussion between the two names. So its on topic.

Ok, thanks.