No, but in a sense they did take credit for it by promoting the algorithm as such without making improvements to harden it, so the burden is theirs to carry just the same. I fully agree with teknohog's assumption that their decision to alter PoW parameters every quarter is flawed logic and shows level of amateur design and development going into Monero. It's no wonder why Edward Snowden classifies it as an amateur cryptocurrency project.

On the other hand Boolberry distanced itself from Cryptonight with the introduction of Wild Keccak which, just like the Monero traceability report relative to Boolberry's guaranteed output, shows level of understanding and foresight not present anywhere in Monero. Although both Cryptonight and Wild Keccak use weakened cryptographic primitives without any justification being provided by either authors; WK is a step in the right direction with regards to providing ASIC performance resistance over Cryptonight with its blockchain based scratchpad.


Holding off ASICs? No offense, but you seem to have a very basic understanding of algorithm design and ASIC development.. ASICs are ALWAYS possible regardless of the underlying algorithm. The idea of being "ASIC resistant" that somehow said algorithm prevents the design and development of an ASIC is a fallacy that's been regurgitated by armchair cryptographers across the cryptocurrency space.

The proper term should be "ASIC performance resistance" as the key to preventing hardware dominance is proper algorithm design for correct cost/benefit/performance analysis. I give crypto_zoidberg as free pass here with regards to him branding Wild Keccak as "ASIC resistant" due to his language barrier, no doubt he meant ASIC performance resistant vs typical terminologies.

Development of an ASIC is roughly 10m USD just to get to a prototype stage. If the end result is an ASIC that performs on par with its CPU or GPU counterparts then the algorithm still retains it's decentralized property thus can be classified as egalitarian. At that point it's purely a matter of who to support Intel, AMD or a new hardware manufacturer with an interest in said currency rather than a question of 100% performance gain over the former.



Again, nothing will make anything ASIC resistant in the typical terminology used by armchair cryptographers as ASIC development is always possible with any algorithm. Reducing hardware dominance to retain egalitarian properties can only be achieved with proper design. The easy fix here would be to adopt Wild Keccak as replacement for Monero's algorithm as it is a direct drop in replacement a worthy successor to Cryptonight.

Or the more logical approach would be to simply just take up an interest in Boolberry and support the superior project. Now that Crypto_zoidberg is back with a full team of developers to support him and the fundamental flaws present in Monero's design it's the only logical decision at this point. Instead of simply migrating to Monero's codebase like Aeon is doing, Zoidberg is making substantial improvements with his own unique LMDB implementation (due for release next week) which leaves 3 unique cryptonote codebases: Bytecoin, Monero and Boolberry.

https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry/branches

(work on LMDB can be viewed on LMDB and LMDB_Core branches).

https://medium.com/@BoolberryBBR/boolberry-monthly-progress-report-march-ccb7d1433472


Not taken as one, however, our our full review on MTP-Argon2 can be viewed at the ePrint below.

"Itsuku: a Memory-Hardened Proof-of-Work Scheme"
https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1168

What started as an initial review of Cryptonight, Wild Keccak and later MTP-Argon2 spiraled into full blown R&D of a new algorithm Itsuku. Over the course of the last year we've achieved 1/16th the proof size of the original MTP design and hardened it against all known attack vectors. We also provide proper hardware design for the algorithm. Among other things, the beauty of Itsuku is that memory bandwidth is the limiting factor, not the size, so even 64GiB over 4GiB will not see much improvement. This algorithm will be used in our upcoming Moneda [XMN] and Doubloon [XDB] reference projects. ZCoin and Turtlecoin are the only projects I know of waiting for us to release either reference project so they can use the algorithm in their system.

https://github.com/turtlecoin/meta/issues/74

Feel free to read through it. In section 6, we briefly outline comparative analysis between Cryptonight, Wild Keccak and Itsuku. That will give you a better understanding of the underlying systems here. We plan on releasing another paper that focuses purely on Cryptonight vs Wild Keccak with improvements that will be made to the latter increase egalitarian properties however this will be released after only after our next paper is published.

In our initial discovery we've found that WK is much better suited than CN to retain said properties. As stated earlier the quick and easy solution would be to adopt WK but again at that point you'd be better off just supporting Boolberry as the original developer is back on the project full time.

Thank you for the kind words! For those that would like to follow along, I have created a separate thread to get feedback from the academic community.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3118418.0

Thank you for the kind words!

The reference to trust was in the cryptographic context, specifically ring signature time complexity. Introducing a trusted party into a payment system on that level invalidates the decentralization property and thus it should not be acceptable to introduce into any decentralized payment system as it would be a step backwards from the original design outlined by Satoshi.

Sun et al. introduced a constant (linkable) ring signature size in their 2017 ePrint, "RingCT 2.0: A Compact Accumulator-Based (Linkable Ring Signature) Protocol for Blockchain Cryptocurrency Monero" [1] although it requires trust, our system is logarithmic and requires no trust. In this scenario, the performance trade-off to forgo the decentralization property is not sufficient.


Hi ETFbitcoin,

Upon further study: a transaction in our system employs (linkable) ring signatures in two different places. On one side, the sender signs his transaction with the linkable ring signature scheme. On the other side, a ring signature is required in the process of proof-of-sum. If one of them is replaced by Schnorr's signature, the anonymity of the whole system will be decreased. Moreover, Boolberry uses a special flag [2] to guarantees that a coin won't be spent without mixins. Such a technique is to deal with the problem caused by signing a transaction on behalf of a ring with only one participant. Since the Schnorr's signature can be regarded as a ring signature with one participant, we don't recommend combining it with ring signatures in Boolberry v2.

[1] - https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/921
[2] - https://www.slideshare.net/boolberry/boolberry-solves-cryptonoteflaws-37055246

Hi cellard. Our paper is purely research based so I don't believe it belongs in the altcoin section. My reasoning stems from the other proposals for cryptographic protocols that are posted in this section of the forum.

We're here to get feedback before publication of our paper and unfortunately the altcoin section lacks many that can contribute this sort of insight. As mentioned, the ePrint is purely researched based. We plan to upload the respective code in the near future and that can be used in any project although we plan to get consensus within the Boolberry community to introduce this as an upgrade to that system.


Hi ETFbitcoin,

That is an interesting concept, combining Schnorr Signature with ring signatures is possible although it would require further study to observe the cost benefit analysis. Herranz et al. proposed such a system in their 2003 ePrint: "Forking Lemmas in the Ring Signatures' Scenario" however that system is still linear.

Thanks crypjunkie! Much appreciated!

Greetings everyone. Today I would like to introduce the first Boolberry Improvement Proposal or BBIP-001, entitled Boolberry V2: Efficient Compact Decentralized Anonymous Payments via Ring Signatures.

This is the culmination of roughly 9 months of research and development by my R&D group, Chainmasons, into improving the existing efficiency of the Boolberry variant of the Cryptonote protocol. We believe our proposed system is the 3rd iteration of the Cryptonote protocol as it represents a major leap forward for the underlying protocol not present in any other system.

Boolberry in it's current state is not quite ready for major improvements like this one until it's existing memory issues are resolved. Although, as we approach that eventuality in the coming month we would like to introduce this proposal so that it goes through the proper scrutiny and public peer review before being introduced as an upgrade to the system. We hope this proposal will be the first of many like it to help further research and development of Boolberry.

Any positive and constructive feedback is welcomed and will be credited in the "thanks" section located at the end of the draft. We will be submitting this for publication to IACR in the coming days so will appreciate any and all contributions. Additionally, if there are any misrepresentation with regards to the contents of the draft please inform us and we will fix them.

We hope that you enjoy our research and find it enlightening.

Here is the ePrint draft v1.0 –> http://docdro.id/rzmGj7b

Boolberry V2: Efficient Compact Decentralized Anonymous Payments via Ring Signatures

Last year I started forming a group of like minded researchers, Chainmasons, to see how we could further improve the already efficient Boolberry variant of the Cryptonote protocol. When I refer to efficiency over other CN projects i.e. transaction verification, tps, scaling etc.

During this time our research efforts were split into two sections. The first was to either improve or replace the mining algorithm Wild Keccak [1]. Those results can be found in section 6 of our ePrint entitled "Itsuku: a Memory-Hardened Proof-of-Work Scheme." [2]

The second, to create the most efficient ring signature based privacy protocol. After 9 months of research and development we would like to share our findings with the rest of the academic community for peer review before ePrint publication. We believe that our system represents 3rd iteration of the Cryptonote protocol. For those that attended Financial Cryptography and Data Security 2018 [3] a few weeks ago, this is the same Boolberry v2 proposal presented at the end of the presentation. The slides from the conference are available in the link below.

Open Problems

Cryptonote achieves sender privacy through the use of Ring Signatures with 1/N ownership probability. The problem here is that since Cryptonote ring signatures are linear, as N grows in size so does the computational overhead. To our knowledge this problem has not been openly addressed by the academic community without introducing a trusted party as found in the RingCT 2.0 [4].

Open Solutions

Boolberry attempts to solves this through the use of a pruning system [5]. This has proven to be effective as seen in the size of Boolberry's blockchain size (3.8GB) vs Monero's (40GB) despite them being launched within weeks of each other. We go a step further by reducing ring signatures to a logarithmic size along with respective bulletproofs to introduce a compact confidential transaction scheme.

In our initial results, we've found that our system represents a 92.8% improvement at 100 ring members and 99.984% improvement at 1000 members in 1/N where N is number of members in the ring. Although we will need to update these figures as per the latest version.

Additionally, we also propose a newly designed technique for multi-signature transactions in the context of (linkable) ring signatures. Our presented DAP is planned as a future upgrade proposal for Boolberry upon further successive peer reviews.

Here is the ePrint draft v1.0 –> http://docdro.id/rzmGj7b

Slides from the fc18 conference -> http://docdro.id/q4GQMFV

Quoted Links:
[1] - https://boolberry.com/files/Block_Chain_Based_Proof_of_Work.pdf
[2] - https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1168
[3] - http://fc18.ifca.ai/
[4] - https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/921
[5] - https://www.slideshare.net/boolberry/boolberry-reduces-blockchain-bloat

Any feedback would be much appreciated and will be credited in the "thanks" section located at end the paper. Also, if there are any misrepresentations please let us know and they will be fixed.

Thank you everyone. We hope you find our research enlightening.

Whaleclub.co is a platform that only offers margin trading, no exchange. It's also in a different jurisdiction (HK) than Poloniex (USA). If they never introduced margin trading into their platform then chances are we wouldn't be having this conversation. I wouldn't be surprise if that 400m "acquisition" was in the form of capital injection to cover market illiquidity.

Poloniex got itself into trouble by operating unlicensed margin trading and lending services. This is most likely the reason why they are having issues honoring withdrawals because they're an illliquid exchange borrowing coin from Peter to pay Paul. They got in over their heads and the only way out was to pass the buck to Circle.

Well we all know about your promises not being kept over the years, that's what lead the project into the current situation

The difference between the two scenarios:

First, I've made no promises here, only a commitment to follow through with exchange listings. Second, my efforts have been only been bottle necked by external forces i.e. lack of documentation, proper API requirement, etc., which I organized and funded in order for Kucoin to list the project.

https://news.kucoin.com/en/kucoin-will-list-boolberrybbr-on-31st-october/
https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry/pull/56


Instead of attempting to blame shift the current state of the project and marketcap into my court and cause unnecessary conflict - why don't you focus on improving your release schedule and announcement structure?

The real hype within this community has been centered around your development roadmap. That's been the hype ever since you came here with a proposal to reboot development under your stewardship. Three months later, on Saturday, you make an announcement about a new website but make no mention about the centerpiece of it - the roadmap.

The community here and any potential BBR investor needs clarity on the milestones you're working on. A public development roadmap is a critical part of any successful cryptocurrency project. The lead developer posts a roadmap, outlining their short, medium or long term goals and the community decides if its worth investing or not. No journalist can even cover your announcement/roadmap yet because nobody knows the value proposition:

Example 1: How/Why is your LMDB implementation an improvement over Monero? Why not simply take IceBreakers advice and "rebase" to Monero?
Example 2: Why are resources being dedicated to redoing the GUI wallet? What improvements will it have over the current system?

These are basic examples of what the general crypto community is looking for in order to get genuinely excited about the project, not trivial posts about who is responsible for hype. I think we all here want this project to be successful but I don't think that is possible if you don't show a level of professionalism with Boolberry announcements i.e. releasing unfinished website, not addressing important topics.. If the leadership here can't showcase value to current holders then they have no hopes of getting outside investment.

Here are some tips to showcase value:

Mondays and Thursdays are the best time to make announcements, not Saturday or Sunday when the market is AFK. Monday starts the week and Thursday carries the weekend. Try getting on a regular announcement schedule instead of this random nonsense. If you want this project to be taken seriously by professionals then start being professional here.

Start listening to the community instead of trying to run a dictatorship. If the community says raising the mining tax to fund the project initiatives is OK, then it's OK. This is called consensus and is the way to operate in the cryptospace. I would have hashappliance be the steward of these funds, it would be a lot more confidence inspiring.

I've recruited a world class team of marketing professionals to this project. Utilize their expertise instead of discouraging them by trying to micro manage every aspect of the project. There was no feedback given to any of them prior to migrating the website to a live server. When you have resources like that available it would be a good idea use the same cooperative workflow instead of doing so after the fact.

Lastly, don't try to make scapegoats out of proactive holders. It doesn't set a good trend to inspire others to contribute time, resources or capital into this project. I may have a lot of energy but that is because I've been living this life for a long time and the competitive pace at which things move here is very fast. If you don't have the energy to keep this pace then you shouldn't be involved in these projects.

Anyways, I hope this helps you understand what the project needs to move forward. We all look forward to hearing the unique value propositions for the milestones on your roadmap.

I hope you're joking here. Roger has done more to promote Bitcoin and build its supporting ecosystem than anyone alive today. From a purely technical level, Bitcoin deviated from it's original design when it introduced Segwit thus Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin and "Bitcoin" is the fork.


Obviously anyone who has been an early Bitcoin supporter and has dedicated years of their life to it's promotion would be concerned when an ignorant public embraces a design change that alters one of the core fundamental principals laid out by the founder. If you are unfamiliar with this dynamic then apply the principal of core design change to any freedom or liberty guaranteed by a nation-state's constitution and then note the changes the alter it. In some instances you positive changes like Magna Carta and negative ones like Patriot Act. In this scenario Bitcoin is akin to the former as it represents freedom from oppression whereas the latter, like Segwit, is an abomination.

Agreed. Once a "holder" transitions into a "contributor" then the complexity between both sides starts to become clear.

A perfect example of this dynamic is the Stocks exchange vs Btcalpha scenario. On one hand you have stocks exchange with 30BTC in overall volume and a broken integration that causes loss of funds when withdrawing using payment ID. On the other hand you have BTC-Alpha with 400BTC in overall volume and a clean integration.

The most rational choice at the macro level would be for those in this community to use the latter to benefit from more access to liquidity, TradingView charts, superior trading engine and reduce the burden for contributors to deal with support issues that result from a bad integration. A successful outcome of this rationale is not easily achieved because it requires cooperation from those at the micro level.

On this level you have individual miners who keep mining directly to this exchange without regard for the concerns at the macro level because it's easier for them to continue with "business as usual" than logging into their pool and changing their payout address. The available inventory then continues to placed on the exchange with integration issues vs the one without. In order to reach a mutually beneficial solution that would decrease support tickets for contributors and increase project growth, it was most the logical choice to disable the pairing on the broken exchange until they can fix it, so that this inventory can be placed on the superior exchange.

Things do move quickly in this space; however, there's not much I can do to expedite the Kucoin listing.. I'm at the mercy of their engineers and their schedule. I made a commitment to this community to see the listing process through, as well as contribute research that will give the project a solid foundation as it begins its journey towards the top market caps. After months of stress dealing with delays, I'm relieved that the former is finally materializing.

In Game Theory, this dynamic is known as the Social Dilemma. I'm operating at the macro level, where cooperation is required with multiple parties (Kucoin, Zoidberg&Co, etc) in order to achieve a successful outcome; where as you are operating at the micro level, only concerned with the pace of cooperation and your own individual cost benefit analysis. The two inter-dependencies are natural and form a symbiotic relationship in any adaptive system. The complexity arises when trying to align the interests of the individual at the micro level with those of the parties at the macro level..

I'm in a unique position both as a contributor and a holder, so I also am able to sympathize with your perspective and concerns. However, you should know that my efforts are at a maximum pace and are only bottlenecked by cooperation from the other parties involved.

I have some good news everyone! It looks like Kucoin is finished integrating most of the APIs. I'm waiting for them to confirm when we'll be able to start testing deposits and withdrawals.

This entire space needs to move away from Twitter. The idea that a centralized government controlled censorship promoting platform should be the main social network for this free thinking decentralized movement is an oxymoron.

Here's a centralized alternative to Twitter:
https://gab.ai/

Open source alternative:
https://mastodon.social/

All it takes is for community influencers and project developers to let their followers know that future updates and announcements will come through mastodon or something similar and the migration will begin.

Hi proride,

Boolberry is not "my" project. I'm a proactive holder there and our R&D group, Chainmasons, is contributing to that project in form of advanced ring and multi-signature research as well as a comparative performance analysis vs Monero. As mentioned in an earlier post, that technology was original planned for Doubloon but since we pivoted this project towards a fully zero knowledge system we won't be using it anymore.

As far as exchanges go there, I covered all listings so far with my own coin and our team made necessary API improvements required for listing on certain exchange who've yet to follow through with their side of the arrangement. I asked the community there to chip in for the Kucoin listing since they will also benefit from Boolberry being back on relatively high volume exchange.

I'm personally not a fan of ICOs. Maybe I'm just "old school" but I believe that the market should decide the price of an asset not a developer or group of founders. This is why we're choosing to launch this project traditionally with small pre-mine/mining tax that will cover any future costs i.e. new hires, listing fees, bounties etc.. Then once the coin hits the exchanges the markets can decide its worth. This is the free market principal vs the principal of price fixing an asset before the market has chance to decide its value. In most cases of ICOs the asset only sustains above ICO value for a short period until the market decides that an asset without working product is effectively worth less than the ask. Here we are working on real research with a new mining algorithm, new zero knowledge privacy protocol with trustless key generation, not some photoshop design asking for millions.

That said, if the community really wants a portion of the pre-mine to be an ICO we would need to lay out the entire system here and let general consensus along with market research decide what the value would be rather than just myself or our team.

The community spread across telegram, slack, discord and riot. A few months ago we built a bridge that connects all the platforms.

Riot:
https://riot.im/app/#/room/#boolberry:matrix.org

Telegram:
http://t.me/boolberry

Discord:
https://discord.gg/4zVZkZr

Slack:
https://boolberry.slack.com

IRC:
http://chat.freenode.net/?channels=boolberry

The answer is right above your post

Stocks will be temporary disabling their BBR market from their available pairings until such time that they launch their new exchange and are able to dedicate resources to fix their integration. Other pairings there also have integration issues and have been taken offline for maintenance.

If you are planning on withdrawing from Stocks DO NOT use their payment ID function for withdrawals otherwise you will lose your funds. Withdraw to a local wallet then if you plan on trading send to BTC-Alpha.

Myself, crypjunkie and others have fully tested BTC-Alpha and there are no issues whatsoever with their platform. As long as you don't send directly from stocks.exchange to BTC-Alpha you will be OK.

Please notify all miners and pool operators so they can plan accordingly.