rpietila Altcoin Observer

[Anotheranonlol]

Ok, so the point is:

Boolberry has been extremely unfairly mined by a guy with a PGPU, who was making 5,000-7,000 Boolberry per day.

Boolberry is not the first fairly launched/accepted Cryptonote coin, it has no network effects working with it

Boolberry lacks a decent size development team

Boolberry has a really crappy name(no offense)

Basically, anyone buying Boolberry is just throwing their money out the window.

1) At least one guy mining with GPU had an advantage over CPU miners in BBR, it's undeniable.
He used this advantage to make quick profit and dump on market (largely) redistributing the coins regularly for guaranteed profit and to recoup the very rea) operating expenses.
this advantage was reduced over time with diff/scratchpad increase as well as increased profitability of other ventures relative as bbr value went down, now gpu miner is in public domain and you can see it is not terribly more efficient. The numbers you give are intentionally misrepresentative as a biased XMR supporter.
It was by no means a consistent 5,000 - 7,000 per day from inception until today. Only Christian could come forward and give you the real numbers, So I won't bother with that one.
 Bear in mind XMR also had a private GPU miner at one time, as well as private CPU miners at ~225% advantage who took 1 minute or so early on to fix the intentional crippling left over from bytecoin.

2) See fairbrix/litecoin. I won't try to argue BBR has same stickinesss XMR currently has because it clearly doesn't. XMR is orchestrated pump and BBR is not. That is why the market cap of BBR is > 10x less that of XMR

3) Contrary to popular belief, BBR is not a one man show. But the developers crack on with code, not eccentricities and flowery talk. I postulate they have a deeper understanding of CN than the XMR dev team

4) agreed, it is shit.

lastly, please keep the font size normal. Big font size is usually reserved for bagholders desperately pumping a shitcoin that get their panties in a twist

[1714785516]

1714785516

[1714785516]

1714785516

[1714785516]

1714785516

[darkota]

Ok, so the point is:

Boolberry has been extremely unfairly mined by a guy with a PGPU, who was making 5,000-7,000 Boolberry per day.

Boolberry is not the first fairly launched/accepted Cryptonote coin, it has no network effects working with it

Boolberry lacks a decent size development team

Boolberry has a really crappy name(no offense)

Basically, anyone buying Boolberry is just throwing their money out the window.

1) At least one guy mining with GPU had an advantage over CPU miners in BBR, it's undeniable.
He used this advantage to make quick profit and dump on market (largely) redistributing the coins regularly for guaranteed profit and to recoup the very rea) operating expenses.
this advantage was reduced over time with diff/scratchpad increase. The numbers you give are intentionally misrepresentative as a biased XMR supporter.
It was by no means a consistent 5,000 - 7,000 per day from inception until today. Only Christian could come forward and give you the real numbers, So I won't bother with that one.
 Bear in mind XMR also had a private GPU miner at one time, as well as private CPU miners at ~225% advantage who took 1 minute or so early on to fix the intentional crippling left over from bytecoin.

2) See fairbrix/litecoin. I won't try to argue BBR has same stickinesss XMR currently has because it clearly doesn't. XMR is orchestrated pump

3) Contrary to popular belief, BBR is not a one man show. But the developers crack on with code, not eccentricities and flowery talk. I postulate they have a deeper understanding of CN than the XMR dev team

4) agreed, it is shit.

lastly, please keep the font size normal. Big font size is usually reserved for bagholders desperately pumping a shitcoin that get their panties in a twist

Im not pumping anything, I just like using font size and bold to emphasize points..I assume thats why they are there... I also hold less then 30 moneros....

1) Exactly how do you know he was/has sold any of his boolberry? Oh yea, cause he just "said so", just like so many other people "said things", just to please the crowd. I highly, highly, doubt that the guy with the PGPU was selling the boolberries he instamined, im sure he holds more than half/most of them. Also, I showed a quote from one of the boolberries devs(btc-mike), ackowledging that the guy with the PGPU was making 5-7k bbr per day, so you can stop lying. Here it is:

Is this coin better or worse than BBR ? ,BBR has made lot of new improvement

YES!

ok, many people said so too ,BRR came out later  ,but made  more innovation

BBR has a private gpu miner since their algoritihm isn't Cryptonote(which doesnt have a private gpu miner, and is mostly cpu only), it's Wild Keccak. According to posts I've read, the guys using that Private Gpu Miner get as much as 7,000 BBR per day, per person...I also saw a 80,000 BBR sell order a few days ago....

Boolberry has been instamined just like quarkcoin and darkcoin.

The private GPU miner WAS making 5,000-7,000 BBR per day. He is making less than a 1/3 of that now.  

CPU mining improvements are made daily.

2) Basically, since I own not that much moneros, I can say that it hasnt even been pumped...It has an overwhemingly large supply of buy orders against the sell orders, but there hasnt been any 10x price increases so far(mintpal pump was just 1 pump, and boolberry was also pumped that day, so you can call boolberry itself an "orchestrated pump"). Basically, what you see, is people who understand what Monero brings to the table, and are happy to be apart of it. It's called being Proud....

3) I only know of 2 Boolberry developers, btc-mike and CryptoZoidberg. That's it. Incase you havent noticed, both boolberries and moneros team share each other code commits on github, so that statement you made makes no sense.

4) At least you admitted one thing(the easiest to admit to a bbr bagholder), that the name is shit.

[Anotheranonlol]

Ok, so the point is:

Boolberry has been extremely unfairly mined by a guy with a PGPU, who was making 5,000-7,000 Boolberry per day.

Boolberry is not the first fairly launched/accepted Cryptonote coin, it has no network effects working with it

Boolberry lacks a decent size development team

Boolberry has a really crappy name(no offense)

Basically, anyone buying Boolberry is just throwing their money out the window.

1) At least one guy mining with GPU had an advantage over CPU miners in BBR, it's undeniable.
He used this advantage to make quick profit and dump on market (largely) redistributing the coins regularly for guaranteed profit and to recoup the very rea) operating expenses.
this advantage was reduced over time with diff/scratchpad increase. The numbers you give are intentionally misrepresentative as a biased XMR supporter.
It was by no means a consistent 5,000 - 7,000 per day from inception until today. Only Christian could come forward and give you the real numbers, So I won't bother with that one.
 Bear in mind XMR also had a private GPU miner at one time, as well as private CPU miners at ~225% advantage who took 1 minute or so early on to fix the intentional crippling left over from bytecoin.

2) See fairbrix/litecoin. I won't try to argue BBR has same stickinesss XMR currently has because it clearly doesn't. XMR is orchestrated pump

3) Contrary to popular belief, BBR is not a one man show. But the developers crack on with code, not eccentricities and flowery talk. I postulate they have a deeper understanding of CN than the XMR dev team

4) agreed, it is shit.

lastly, please keep the font size normal. Big font size is usually reserved for bagholders desperately pumping a shitcoin that get their panties in a twist

Im not pumping anything, I just like using font size and bold to emphasize points..I assume thats why they are there... I also hold less then 30 xmr....

1) Exactly how do you know he was/has sold any of his boolberry? Oh yea, cause he just "said so", just like so many other people "said things", just to please the crowd. I highly, highly, doubt that the guy with the PGPU was selling the boolberries he instamined, im sure he holds more than half/most of them.

2) Basically, since I own not that much moneros, I can say that it hasnt even been pumped...It has an overwhemingly large supply of buy orders against the sell orders, but there hasnt been any 10x price increases so far(mintpal pump was just 1 pump, and boolberry was also pumped that day, so you can call boolberry itself an "orchestrated pump"). Basically, what you see, is people who understand what Monero brings to the table, and are happy to be apart of it. It's called being Proud....

3) I only know of 2 Boolberry developers, btc-mike and CryptoZoidberg. That's it. Incase you havent noticed, both boolberries and moneros team share each other code commits on github, so that statement you made makes no sense.

4) At least you admitted one thing(the easiest to admit to a bbr bagholder), that the name is shit.

1) Because I was buying
2) XMR buy support ~650 BTC BBR buy support ~4.5 BTC was some numbers from earlier today on poloniex. If you are suggesting BBR is the one pumped I would call you crazy.  (To be clear I am not insinuating a pump automatically means a dump is in order) I do hold both XMR and BBR. (and without sounding like I'm bragging, I'm sure considerably more XMR than you, which is funny for how passionate you are about the competition considering you've admitting your holdings are meagre) XMR is artificially inflated, or should I say the rise is accelerated relative to BBR which is organically moving on it's own technological merits and not marketing antics by bitcointalk all-stars and a team of brown-nosers who insinuate it's the only thing worthy of your attention aside from btc, and that anything else is just a cheap clone. BBR has a market cap of less than 10x that of XMR, there's no tangible explanation as to why. Fundamentally it's the stronger coin.
3) btc-mike is not an XMR developer, neither is cz the only one. I do notice they have shared commits in the past. What is surprising about that?
4) bagholder only applies when you have net losses, something I don't currently have in BBR nor XMR. (realised and unrealised)

[btc-mike]

Ok, so the point is:

Boolberry has been extremely unfairly mined by a guy with a PGPU, who was making 5,000-7,000 Boolberry per day.

Boolberry is not the first fairly launched/accepted Cryptonote coin, it has no network effects working with it

Boolberry lacks a decent size development team

Boolberry has a really crappy name(no offense)

Basically, anyone buying Boolberry is just throwing their money out the window.

1) At least one guy mining with GPU had an advantage over CPU miners in BBR, it's undeniable.
He used this advantage to make quick profit and dump on market (largely) redistributing the coins regularly for guaranteed profit and to recoup the very rea) operating expenses.
this advantage was reduced over time with diff/scratchpad increase. The numbers you give are intentionally misrepresentative as a biased XMR supporter.
It was by no means a consistent 5,000 - 7,000 per day from inception until today. Only Christian could come forward and give you the real numbers, So I won't bother with that one.
 Bear in mind XMR also had a private GPU miner at one time, as well as private CPU miners at ~225% advantage who took 1 minute or so early on to fix the intentional crippling left over from bytecoin.

2) See fairbrix/litecoin. I won't try to argue BBR has same stickinesss XMR currently has because it clearly doesn't. XMR is orchestrated pump

3) Contrary to popular belief, BBR is not a one man show. But the developers crack on with code, not eccentricities and flowery talk. I postulate they have a deeper understanding of CN than the XMR dev team

4) agreed, it is shit.

lastly, please keep the font size normal. Big font size is usually reserved for bagholders desperately pumping a shitcoin that get their panties in a twist

1)Christian is the only person that knows the correct numbers. The only way to be sure is to examine the wallet he used while mining.

2)There is no clear winner in the first fair release argument.

Bitmonero was announced on 4/9. Bitmonero was launched 4/18. Bitmonero was taken over around 4/24 and renamed Monero.
Boolberry was announced on 4/21. Boolberry was launched on 5/17.

There was active development on Boolberry since the announce. No meaningfiul changes were made to the Bitmonero core until after the takeover.

3) According to Anonymint's post BBR has a better team size than Monero.

[darkota]

Ok, so the point is:

Boolberry has been extremely unfairly mined by a guy with a PGPU, who was making 5,000-7,000 Boolberry per day.

Boolberry is not the first fairly launched/accepted Cryptonote coin, it has no network effects working with it

Boolberry lacks a decent size development team

Boolberry has a really crappy name(no offense)

Basically, anyone buying Boolberry is just throwing their money out the window.

1) At least one guy mining with GPU had an advantage over CPU miners in BBR, it's undeniable.
He used this advantage to make quick profit and dump on market (largely) redistributing the coins regularly for guaranteed profit and to recoup the very rea) operating expenses.
this advantage was reduced over time with diff/scratchpad increase. The numbers you give are intentionally misrepresentative as a biased XMR supporter.
It was by no means a consistent 5,000 - 7,000 per day from inception until today. Only Christian could come forward and give you the real numbers, So I won't bother with that one.
 Bear in mind XMR also had a private GPU miner at one time, as well as private CPU miners at ~225% advantage who took 1 minute or so early on to fix the intentional crippling left over from bytecoin.

2) See fairbrix/litecoin. I won't try to argue BBR has same stickinesss XMR currently has because it clearly doesn't. XMR is orchestrated pump

3) Contrary to popular belief, BBR is not a one man show. But the developers crack on with code, not eccentricities and flowery talk. I postulate they have a deeper understanding of CN than the XMR dev team

4) agreed, it is shit.

lastly, please keep the font size normal. Big font size is usually reserved for bagholders desperately pumping a shitcoin that get their panties in a twist

1)Christian is the only person that knows the correct numbers. The only way to be sure is to examine the wallet he used while mining.

2)There is no clear winner in the first fair release argument.

Bitmonero was announced on 4/9. Bitmonero was launched 4/18. Bitmonero was taken over around 4/24 and renamed Monero.
Boolberry was announced on 4/21. Boolberry was launched on 5/17.

There was active development on Boolberry since the announce. No meaningfiul changes were made to the Bitmonero core until after the takeover.

3) According to Anonymint's post BBR has a better team size than Monero.

1) Ok, so we are all using assumptions of whether he dumped or held his instamined boolberries. My assumptions are based on just how, unlawful and untruthful a lot of seeming lee "honest" folk in the crypto scene are, I Highly doubt that he dumped anything/much.

2) There is obviously a clear winner, as Monero(formerly Bitmonero) was launched before boolberry

3) Anonymint was wrong with that statement, as I remember seeing another user correct him, along with the fact that accoriding to studies, 5 is the optimal team number, Monero has a team of around 7, which is way closer to the optimal number of 5, than boolberries team of 1. Source: http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/04/agile-optimal-team-size

[darkota]

Ok, so the point is:

Boolberry has been extremely unfairly mined by a guy with a PGPU, who was making 5,000-7,000 Boolberry per day.

Boolberry is not the first fairly launched/accepted Cryptonote coin, it has no network effects working with it

Boolberry lacks a decent size development team

Boolberry has a really crappy name(no offense)

Basically, anyone buying Boolberry is just throwing their money out the window.

1) At least one guy mining with GPU had an advantage over CPU miners in BBR, it's undeniable.
He used this advantage to make quick profit and dump on market (largely) redistributing the coins regularly for guaranteed profit and to recoup the very rea) operating expenses.
this advantage was reduced over time with diff/scratchpad increase. The numbers you give are intentionally misrepresentative as a biased XMR supporter.
It was by no means a consistent 5,000 - 7,000 per day from inception until today. Only Christian could come forward and give you the real numbers, So I won't bother with that one.
 Bear in mind XMR also had a private GPU miner at one time, as well as private CPU miners at ~225% advantage who took 1 minute or so early on to fix the intentional crippling left over from bytecoin.

2) See fairbrix/litecoin. I won't try to argue BBR has same stickinesss XMR currently has because it clearly doesn't. XMR is orchestrated pump

3) Contrary to popular belief, BBR is not a one man show. But the developers crack on with code, not eccentricities and flowery talk. I postulate they have a deeper understanding of CN than the XMR dev team

4) agreed, it is shit.

lastly, please keep the font size normal. Big font size is usually reserved for bagholders desperately pumping a shitcoin that get their panties in a twist

Im not pumping anything, I just like using font size and bold to emphasize points..I assume thats why they are there... I also hold less then 30 xmr....

1) Exactly how do you know he was/has sold any of his boolberry? Oh yea, cause he just "said so", just like so many other people "said things", just to please the crowd. I highly, highly, doubt that the guy with the PGPU was selling the boolberries he instamined, im sure he holds more than half/most of them.

2) Basically, since I own not that much moneros, I can say that it hasnt even been pumped...It has an overwhemingly large supply of buy orders against the sell orders, but there hasnt been any 10x price increases so far(mintpal pump was just 1 pump, and boolberry was also pumped that day, so you can call boolberry itself an "orchestrated pump"). Basically, what you see, is people who understand what Monero brings to the table, and are happy to be apart of it. It's called being Proud....

3) I only know of 2 Boolberry developers, btc-mike and CryptoZoidberg. That's it. Incase you havent noticed, both boolberries and moneros team share each other code commits on github, so that statement you made makes no sense.

4) At least you admitted one thing(the easiest to admit to a bbr bagholder), that the name is shit.

1) Because I was buying
2) XMR buy support ~650 BTC BBR buy support ~4.5 BTC was some numbers from earlier today on poloniex. If you are suggesting BBR is the one pumped I would call you crazy.  (To be clear I am not insinuating a pump automatically means a dump is in order) I do hold both XMR and BBR. (and without sounding like I'm bragging, I'm sure considerably more XMR than you, which is funny for how passionate you are about the competition considering you've admitting your holdings are meagre) XMR is artificially inflated, or should I say the rise is accelerated relative to BBR which is organically moving on it's own technological merits and not marketing antics by bitcointalk all-stars and a team of brown-nosers who insinuate it's the only thing worthy of your attention aside from btc, and that anything else is just a cheap clone. BBR has a market cap of less than 10x that of XMR, there's no tangible explanation as to why. Fundamentally it's the stronger coin.
3) btc-mike is not an XMR developer, neither is cz the only one. I do notice they have shared commits in the past. What is surprising about that?
4) bagholder only applies when you have losses, something I don't have in BBR nor XMR. (realised and unrealised)

1) I don't believe that in the least? Why? Because looking at the previous asks/bids on boolberry, not much has been traded. So it's either you're straight up lying you did with saying the guy wasnt making 5-7k bbr per day(he was), or you did it off the books somehow in a dark alley (sarcasm)

2) Strong buy support is obviously not a pump, especially since the price has remained stable, with no large upswings or signs of a pump. That's called Demand.

3) So btc-mike isnt a developer, that means Boolberry only has 1 developer, now you cant say otherwise, because you yourself made the statement lol

4) Only thing you're right on.

[btc-mike]

1) Ok, so we are all using assumptions of whether he dumped or held his instamined boolberries. My assumptions are based on just how, unlawful and untruthful a lot of seeming lee "honest" folk in the crypto scene are, I Highly doubt that he dumped anything/much.

2) There is obviously a clear winner, as Monero(formerly Bitmonero) was launched before boolberry

3) Anonymint was wrong with that statement, as I remember seeing another user correct him, along with the fact that accoriding to studies, 5 is the optimal team number, Monero has a team of around 7, which is way closer to the optimal number of 5, than boolberries team of 2. Source: http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/04/agile-optimal-team-size

1)We agree on the bolded part.

2)Monero was released with an intentionally crippled hash. That is not a fair launch.

3)I am not a dev and never claimed to be. There are other devs.

[dga]

1) Because I was buying
2) XMR buy support ~650 BTC BBR buy support ~4.5 BTC was some numbers from earlier today on poloniex. If you are suggesting BBR is the one pumped I would call you crazy.  (To be clear I am not insinuating a pump automatically means a dump is in order) I do hold both XMR and BBR. (and without sounding like I'm bragging, I'm sure considerably more XMR than you, which is funny for how passionate you are about the competition considering you've admitting your holdings are meagre) XMR is artificially inflated, or should I say the rise is accelerated relative to BBR which is organically moving on it's own technological merits and not marketing antics by bitcointalk all-stars and a team of brown-nosers who insinuate it's the only thing worthy of your attention aside from btc, and that anything else is just a cheap clone. BBR has a market cap of less than 10x that of XMR, there's no tangible explanation as to why. Fundamentally it's the stronger coin.
3) btc-mike is not an XMR developer, neither is cz the only one. I do notice they have shared commits in the past. What is surprising about that?
4) bagholder only applies when you have losses, something I don't have in BBR nor XMR. (realised and unrealised)

1) I don't believe that in the least? Why? Because looking at the previous asks/bids on boolberry, not much has been traded. So it's either you're straight up lying you did with saying the guy wasnt making 5-7k bbr per day(he was), or you did it off the books somehow in a dark alley (sarcasm)

2) Strong buy support is obviously not a pump, especially since the price has remained stable, with no large upswings or signs of a pump. That's called Demand.

3) So btc-mike isnt a developer, that means Boolberry only has 1 developer, now you cant say otherwise, because you yourself made the statement lol

4) Only thing you're right on.

While I couldn't tell you what transactions he conducted with Christian or other miners, Anotheranonlol was buying BBR in a dark alley -- or, at least, off-market, as the term is more properly used.  I sold him a sizable fraction of what I was mining on EC2, and while the exact #s are none of your business, they were reasonably substantial.  I sold another sizable fraction on the market through an auto-selling bot on Poloniex that sold 80% of what I got at market buy price, and kept 10-20% in reserve at high prices.   The same kind of off-market transactions happened with both XMR and BBR.

To put this in context, I spent over $20,000 CPU mining on AWS in June.  I'm a small fish in the game, but the bigger fish were paying a lot of attention to XMR.

From my count of the #s, I believe that I personally (well, as personal as having 400 c3.8xlarge instances gets) CPU mined more Boolberry than Christian could have during that month, and of that, I held on to about 11k.

I don't know who the BBR whales are at this point, but I suspect they're not too dissimilar from Rpietila's analysis of the XMR whales.  I believe by this point, the "advantaged miners" for both XMR and BBR have mostly sold their stashes for profit, and the coins are solidly in the hands of investors.  I could be wrong - I believe that for both XMR and BBR there are likely something like 40-50k coins still parked with advantaged miners - but they're advantaged miners who've decided to hold longer, which makes them indistinguishable from investors.

On this front, Darkota, you might consider stopping throwing stones until you examine slightly the amount of silica in your own residence.   People had optimized XMR CPU miners.  Christian had an optimized GPU miner for XMR as well, just so you can't quite as conveniently forget that.  Half the people in this thread know what the mining distribution of XMR looked like in the first two months, and know that it's probably no more or less biased than BBR, and have collectively decided they don't care.  As a reasonable comparison:  Neither XMR or BBR has a holder who owns as much of the eventual market supply as Satoshi Nakamoto does, for example.  Unless maybe it's rpietila - but he paid market rate for them.

And I'm pretty sure their conclusion is right:  Because it was only two months, and represents a *relatively* small fraction of the total coins that will be produced in year 1, much less the life of the coin.  Neither of these coins is a corrupt-developer P&D.  And at this point, the publicly available miners are all within a reasonable percent (let's call it 20%) of the best - but let's not turn this into another bitch-fest about Claymore's XMR GPU miner, because his 5% cut is also fairly irrelevant.

[vokain]

3) Anonymint was wrong with that statement, as I remember seeing another user correct him, along with the fact that accoriding to studies, 5 is the optimal team number, Monero has a team of around 7, which is way closer to the optimal number of 5, than boolberries team of 2. Source: http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/04/agile-optimal-team-size

Hail Eris!  

[rethink-your-strategy]

3) According to Anonymint's post BBR has a better team size than Monero.

Holy fuck you're stupid (waaaah, waaaah, ad hominem). I hold some BBR, and all you're doing is a disservice to BBR.

AnonyMint has made his position on BBR clear:

He's found that BBR pruning "has a flaw" or "simply isn't what is claimed"

He's said that "Monero has a superior name, larger team, larger market cap, more investment, more funding"

He's confirmed that BBR's PoW "seems to lack entropy"

His conclusion is equally clear: "any initial enthusiam about the quality of the developer has waned for me".

Rethink your strategy, bro.

[dga]

3) According to Anonymint's post BBR has a better team size than Monero.

Holy fuck you're stupid (waaaah, waaaah, ad hominem). I hold some BBR, and all you're doing is a disservice to BBR.

AnonyMint has made his position on BBR clear:

He's found that BBR pruning "has a flaw" or "simply isn't what is claimed"

He's said that "Monero has a superior name, larger team, larger market cap, more investment, more funding"

He's confirmed that BBR's PoW "seems to lack entropy"

His conclusion is equally clear: "any initial enthusiam about the quality of the developer has waned for me".

Rethink your strategy, bro.

My goodness, the trolls are thick tonight.

I've posted in other threads about the comparison between XMR and BBR's proof of work schemes.  The bottom line is that they're optimizing for fundamentally different things.  I have a hunch that in the long term, both will turn into DRAM bandwidth-limited currencies, but for very different reasons, but that's an attribute that places ASIC-accelerated approaches on a reasonably similar bar.  The GPUs will be faster than the CPUs.  The ASICs will be faster than the GPUs.  But the ratio will be less large than it is with Bitcoin.  In the short term, BBR will be relatively more GPU-friendly than XMR is, but I don't think that there's much difference for them with ASIC-based implementations.

The statement about the "seems to lack entropy" is as vague as AnonyMint's other attacks against the XMR proof of work for having weaknesses related to its use of AES.  Remember - he doesn't like either of them, if you're going to start dredging all this crap up.  I'm in the opposite boat - I suspect they're both fine for now, but I make that statement cautiously for both, with the understanding that they may need to be modified (in relatively small ways) at some point in the next few years.

There is one known "weakness" in the BBR proof-of-work that should be fixed at some point in the future, but it's similar in importance to the way AES is used in XMR:  Both might make a serious cryptographer nervous if the function was being used **as a hash function** that needed all of the strong properties of a hash function, but neither is overly-flawed as a *proof-of-work* function, barring future analysis.  The truth about them both is that they've both used well-studied cryptographic primitives (good) and changed the *inside* of them to achieve a goal of memory hardness.  It's always dangerous to poke around inside the algorithms, but proof-of-work leaves a lot more breathing room as far as we know -- this is still a fairly under-studied field.

All of this misquoting of the mythical man month is silly, and ignores a more important point:  1-2 developers can do great things.  So can 7.  So can a dozen -- that's Amazon's preferred team size, for example.  With all of these, the proof will be in the pudding, as measured by robustness and security, usability, efficiency, and important features.

Stop grasping at bull$#!#.  Go read Zoidberg's presentation about the pruning, as I'm about to do, since it seems to be the only bit of actually useful information added to this debate in the last day.  People have expressed skepticism about whether it can work, and others have said it's one of the two most important features that BBR has over the rest of CryptoNote -- now is the time to start figuring that out.

[btc-mike]

3) According to Anonymint's post BBR has a better team size than Monero.

Holy fuck you're stupid (waaaah, waaaah, ad hominem). I hold some BBR, and all you're doing is a disservice to BBR.

AnonyMint has made his position on BBR clear:

He's found that BBR pruning "has a flaw" or "simply isn't what is claimed"

He's said that "Monero has a superior name, larger team, larger market cap, more investment, more funding"

He's confirmed that BBR's PoW "seems to lack entropy"

His conclusion is equally clear: "any initial enthusiam about the quality of the developer has waned for me".

Rethink your strategy, bro.

Easy there, killer. I never said Anonymint preferred BBR over Monero. I missed the position change on dev team size.

1) He said probably. I cannot prove the non-existance of something. Zoidberg can reply if there any specific concerns. 

2) He says lots of things. What do these have to do with anything I said.

3) Reread that link. 

[AnonyMint]

That was a shocking revelation for me. If you look at every communications technology adoption curve, they were all at 20% adoption by 5 years. Bitcoin will be at 6 years as of Jan 2015.

I meant every decentralized low capital or intangible one, so exclude for example the landline telephone or the car which required heavy capital investment.

I have long worried that bitcoins adoption rate isn't high enough. I especially noticed it when compared to things like M-Pesa which is a similar competitor, but also in general to things like facebook, whatsapp, skype.  

The first iphonie came out in 2008, bitcoin 2009.  I teach at an expensive private uni so my test population is skewed, but I have 100% smart phone adoption amongst my students.  And of those, most haven't even heard of Bitcoin.  

I sometimes worry that bitcoin and similiar tech might be an idea that is ahead of their time.  Just like palm pilots were to smart phones.  Same similar concept but one exploded and one did not.  

I have no doubt that one day there is going to be a massive shift away from fiat to citizen created electronic forms of value.  The current system of government backed currencies just isn't good enough.  Bitcoin might be the answer, but it is hard to tell . And yet it can't exactly be compared to these other things.  While it is a program/service, it really is an electronic good when it comes down to it.  It can't quite be thought of as a smartphone because it is a good but not physical and can't really be thought of like Facebook or Google which are basically just electronic services.  

Also, all those other technologies were dealing with genres in which the new product or service was basically an upgrade.  With crypto, we are creating an entirely new genre, one that most people don't yet realize they need.

[smooth]

Also, all those other technologies were dealing with genres in which the new product or service was basically an upgrade.  With crypto, we are creating an entirely new genre, one that most people don't yet realize they need.

This is a valid point.

What was the last invention that was as profoundly novel as Satoshi's invention of a scarce information good?

I don't know, they are very few and far between.

[AnonyMint]

I heard you were talking about pruning ring signatures from CryptoNote coins, so let me introduce Boolberry's solution

Zoidberg

Hello Zoidberg. I apologize I thought you were attempting to prune the blockchain of transaction records which are spent— which both I and at least fluffypony think is impossible.

Now I see the details of your solution, which is discarding the ring signature proofs bloat, but retaining all transaction history. This indeed will work fine.

However, this is not pruning the blockchain, rather is just a constant size reduction in the bloat, thus it still won't scale to Visa scale because even Bitcoin wouldn't scale to Visa scale without pruning transaction history (or implementing the mini blockchain which also discards transaction history more efficiently). To reach Visa scale without mining centralization, appears to require transaction history pruning (at current hard disk size, and for the UXTO also memory size or SSD is a factor).

There is confusion over what the term 'pruning' means in this context of the blockchain. You are discarding some of the data from each transaction record (specifically the ring signatures proof), but you are not pruning the transaction history (because it is impossible or impractical).

I will update my upthread summary of top anonymity coins to note your advantage. But note your advantage doesn't really solve the scaling problem of one-time ring signatures. Thus I can't insure the mention of Boolberry will be sticky (for long) as the summary is edited by the community.

When I said my enthusiam waned, I didn't mean to imply that you are not a capable programmer, because obviously you are. I meant that you are picking features to implement which don't really achieve the necessary level of functionality to unequivocally pull out in front of the rest of the coins. But I don't fault you for this, because most everyone else can't figure it out either. It is just that you are up against apparently a significant team of devs with Monero. I am not saying you couldn't pull a radical innovation out of your hat— anything is possible. Seriously consider renaming your coin. Perhaps rpietila still owns StealthCoin, which I gifted to him in early 2013 and can offer it to you to show his goodwill?

About your PoW hash, I am concerned there isn't enough entropy on the blockchain headers to prevent some trivial preimaging. I haven't had time to think deeply about it though, so no one should quote my concern as any thing more than an intuitive guess.

P.S. I never wrote that the ideal team size is 1 or 2 for all scenarios. Rather I said that for raw innovation, the ideal is 1 or 2 and for refinement via open source, the core team size should be larger (with hopefully a Benevolent Dictator to keep innovation from being stifled by consensus gridlock or chaos) and the community of eyeballs should be unbounded.

Shelby

[AnonyMint]

2)Monero was released with a crippled hash that was instamined by Bytecoin devs. That is not a fair launch.

I've heard this criticism. And raised the issue in a Monero thread.

[crypto_zoidberg]

At first - thank you for your interest to our poject.

Hello Zoidberg. I apologize I thought you were attempting to prune the blockchain of transaction records which are spent— which both I and at least fluffpony think is impossible.

Now I see the details of your solution, which is discarding the ring signature proofs bloat, but retaining all transaction history. This indeed will work fine.

However, this is not pruning the blockchain, rather is just a constant size reduction in the bloat, thus it still won't scale to Visa scale because even Bitcoin wouldn't scale to Visa scale without pruning transaction history (or implementing the mini blockchain which also discards transaction history more efficiently).

I agree with you - it is not pruning transactions, and we newer claimed that we do it (This is strange that Monero devs was not explained this to you since they said that they closely examined all Boolberry features.   )
But there was still possible to reduce a bigger part of transaction's body - and i did that, since it was best that i could do with CryptoNote blockchain bloat.

I will update my upthread summary of top anonymity coins to note your advantage. But note your advantage doesn't really solve the scaling problem of one-time ring signatures.

When I said my enthusiam waned, I didn't mean to imply that you are not a capable programmer, because obviously you are. I meant that you are picking features to work out which don't really achieve the necessary level of functionality to unequivocally pull out in front of the rest of the coins. But I don't fault you for this, because most everyone else can't figure it out either. It is just that you are up against apparently a significant team of devs with Monero. I am not saying you couldn't pull a radical innovation out of your hat— anything is possible.

Boolberry is not perfect, sure. Every coin have practical problems. But this is obviously that our project is technically stronger than any other CN coin, despite "significant team of devs with Monero". (nothing personal - i still like a few pretty nice persons from Monero )

About your PoW hash, I am concerned there isn't enough entropy on the blockchain headers to prevent some trivial preimaging. I haven't had time to think deeply about it though, so no one should quote my concern as any thing more than an intuitive guess.

P.S. I never wrote that the ideal team size is 1 or 2 for all scenarios. Rather I said that for raw innovation, the ideal is 1 or 2 and for refinement via open source, the core team size should be larger (with hopefully a Benevolent Dictator to keep innovation from being stifled by consensus gridlock or chaos) and the community of eyeballs should be unbounded.

We don't use the whole header's data since it obviously not all of it is pseudo-random. For adding to scratchpad i use only:
* prev block id
* coin-base transaction's onetime key
* coinbase transaction's outs keys (xored with prev_id)
* blocks merkle hash
So i took only that data that seems to be maximum close to random.
(take a look into get_block_scratchpad_addendum(const block& b, std::vector<crypto::hash>& res) in src\currency_core\currency_format_utils.cpp: line 868)

upd:
PoW is changed because oroginal CN PoW is extremely slow, even with optimizations. Now, with that slow hash Bytecoin, Monero and others have to provide a link for downloading blockchain file instead of loading this from network cloud, tha's actually a real centralization.
In Boolberry we have 5-times faster synchronization and don't need to centralized blockchain file preloading.

Zoidberg

[drawingthesun]

1) Ok, so we are all using assumptions of whether he dumped or held his instamined boolberries. My assumptions are based on just how, unlawful and untruthful a lot of seeming lee "honest" folk in the crypto scene are, I Highly doubt that he dumped anything/much.

2) There is obviously a clear winner, as Monero(formerly Bitmonero) was launched before boolberry

3) Anonymint was wrong with that statement, as I remember seeing another user correct him, along with the fact that accoriding to studies, 5 is the optimal team number, Monero has a team of around 7, which is way closer to the optimal number of 5, than boolberries team of 2. Source: http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/04/agile-optimal-team-size

1)We agree on the bolded part.

2)Monero was released with a crippled hash that was instamined by Bytecoin devs. That is not a fair launch.

3)I am not a dev and never claimed to be. There are other devs.

Wait what? 2) you're claiming claymore is a Bytecoin Dev? What are you basing that on? Can I see some proof?

As far as I can tell he's just a talented programmer that wants to make money. I don't agree with his tactics but no way does this qualify Monero as a premine. This FUD campaign is so lame. Try again.

[AnonyMint]

I will update my upthread summary of top anonymity coins to note your advantage. But note your advantage doesn't really solve the scaling problem of one-time ring signatures.

When I said my enthusiam waned, I didn't mean to imply that you are not a capable programmer, because obviously you are. I meant that you are picking features to work out which don't really achieve the necessary level of functionality to unequivocally pull out in front of the rest of the coins. But I don't fault you for this, because most everyone else can't figure it out either. It is just that you are up against apparently a significant team of devs with Monero. I am not saying you couldn't pull a radical innovation out of your hat— anything is possible.

Boolberry is not perfect, sure. Every coin have practical problems. But this is obviously that our project is technically stronger than any other CN coin, despite "significant team of devs with Monero". (nothing personal - i still like a few pretty nice persons from Monero )

The technically strong devs respect each other and will gravitate towards the winning technical solution. In theory every technically strong and extremely productive dev can be sufficiently rewarded with bounties, because the market is gargantuan if we solve the scaling problems and there is a lot to work on. I am sure most of us would love to work on changing the fundamental structure of the internet to turn back the corporate fascist takeover, e.g. facebook, google, yahoo. This we can fund from the coin that can scale.

Some silly name brainstorming off the top of my head:

Zoidberry
Mixberry
Moolaberry
Zeroberry
Nullberry
Moberry
Sieve <-- probably the best name I've thought of recently.

About your PoW hash, I am concerned there isn't enough entropy on the blockchain headers to prevent some trivial preimaging. I haven't had time to think deeply about it though, so no one should quote my concern as any thing more than an intuitive guess.

We don't use the whole header's data since it obviously not all of it is pseudo-random. For adding to scratchpad i use only:
* prev block id
* coin-base transaction's onetime key
* coinbase transaction's outs keys (xored with prev_id)
* blocks merkle hash
So i took only that data that seems to be maximum close to random.
(take a look into get_block_scratchpad_addendum(const block& b, std::vector<crypto::hash>& res) in src\currency_core\currency_format_utils.cpp: line 868)

My concern is this data is not any where near even 2^128 in entropy.

You can reduce the number of computed random lookups using this block chain header entropy, but my intuitive guess is you can't safely eliminate all the computation which increases the apparent (i.e. easily knowable without cryptanalysis attack) entropy via confusion and diffusion[1]. So I think you need to reintroduce some computed lookups and only replace some of the computed lookups with the block header entropy. However, I haven't studied your PoW source code, so it might already apply confusion and diffusion to the block header input entropy.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusion_and_diffusion
     http://www.theamazingking.com/crypto-block.php

[dga]

upd:
PoW is changed because oroginal CN PoW is extremely slow, even with optimizations. Now, with that slow hash Bytecoin, Monero and others have to provide a link for downloading blockchain file instead of loading this from network cloud, tha's actually a real centralization.
In Boolberry we have 5-times faster synchronization and don't need to centralized blockchain file preloading.

Zoidberg

This is one that's worth elevating into the "strengths of BBR" list.  I'm possibly overly-sensitive to it because I end up re-synchronizing both my XMR and BBR blockchains frequently due to excessive poking at things, but it really is true that I'm willing to start up the BBR daemon from a fresh build and let it sync over the network, whereas with XMR (or, heaven forbid, BCN), you're pretty dead in the water if you don't download the blockchain first from a (quasi-central) source.

Speaking specifically of XMR, this seems to arise because of:

(a)  1 minute block times leads to more cryptonight-style verification (CPU);
(b)  Early dust transactions from pools and people trying "big blockchain stuffing" attacks led to artificially large transactions and transaction volume in the early days (CPU and bandwidth);
(c)  CryptoNight is a comparatively expensive hash to evaluate (perhaps 20ms on a good CPU), and the daemon is, I believe, still single-threaded when it comes to handling the blockchain verification.  That means maybe 50 blocks/second, or roughly 30 seconds of single-core CPU time per day of the blockchain. (CPU)
(d)  Overall blockchain size from ring signatures, mixins, etc. (bandwidth)

Some of these, such as multithreading parts of the blockchain verification, can probably be fixed with "just engineering".  Others, such as the early transaction dust and DoS attacks, are hopefully a one-time artifact.

(c) and (d) are the most interesting in a longer-term sense, because (d) will increase with transaction size, and the total amount of time spent doing (c) grows linearly over time as the number of blocks in the chain grows.