Quote from: rethink-your-strategy on July 22, 2014, 11:22:41 PM

Quote from: btc-mike on July 22, 2014, 08:09:56 PM

Quote from: aminorex on July 22, 2014, 07:06:48 PM

Quote from: binaryFate on July 22, 2014, 07:04:31 PM

This said, the blockchain will grow larger than bitcoin one, by a linear factor. Price to "pay" for unlinkability and untraceability.

For now. I'm pretty sure there will be a much smaller chain with adapted cryptonote before too long.

Boolberry was designed from the beginning with smaller blockchain in mind. The ring signatures can easily be cut off reducing the size by 50%.

Show me the mathematical proof that this can be done without reducing the anonymity set. Like maybe publish a fucking whitepaper or something instead of talking out your ass.

(a) Civility is underrated as a conversation starter and mechanism for asking someone else to do something. Wink

(b) I think this is worthwhile; I assume that Zoidberg and btc-mike already have a presentation on this in the planning stage, because it's the other major advance of Boolberry over the base CryptoNote code, but if they don't, I'll add my vote to the list asking for it as well;

(c) I believe that the consequence is not a threat to anonymity, but closer to the limited aspect of centralization imposed by any blockchain checkpointing mechanism. The discussion about this for bitcoin was lengthy, and I won't repeat it all here - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Checkpoint_Lockin

Just as in bitcoin, using a checkpoint about, e.g., the state of the blockchain 100 days ago is an "out-of-band" mechanism of locking in the old consensus blockchain. Probably not an issue in practice.