The proof-of-work has plusses and minuses
Could you elaborate on the con's of Wild Keccak's proof-of-work function approach implemented in Boolberry over vanilla cryptonight implemented in bytecoin, quazarcoin,aeoncoin monero etc?
Seems that it satisfies the same ASIC resistant properties of cryptonight, whilst being much faster to validate, therefore resulting in a more pleasant user experience and better DoS resistance (In independent tests BBR synchronized from scratch in about 12 minutes, whilst XMR synced in about 3.5 hours) which is around 17 x faster.
Whilst you may not agree with the numbers there (obviously the 17x slower syncing of monero was not simply down to using cryptonight instead of wild keccak) with same transaction flow, BBR was still demonstrated to synchronize
4x faster - of course we know that there are not 4x as many blocks in XMR than BBR, that seems to go against your claims.
Sure - its major advantage right now derives from its better choice of block time, the fact that it didn't have an early-stage dust problem, and that its transaction fees weren't as easily exploitable for DoS attacks.
That is incorrect on all three counts. Take a look at the details (proportion attributable to these factors, etc.) and you will see that these are not the main reasons for the block chain being smaller and faster.
Even the difference in PoW is relatively unimportant right now (but might have some advantage -- or disadvantage -- in the future).
Could you give more details to the disadvantage it might have in the future that you alluded to there?