I have made it quite clear in the Aeon topics that the recent Aeon run up has been mainly me buying a lot of it.  Don't think that Aeon mass adoption is right around the corner or anything; I like the branding, I respect Smooth's honesty and competency as a developer, and I like the focus on mobile and pruning that Aeon will try to implement.  I also enjoy that I've had a hand in helping bring about a proposal to make Aeon be the first major cryptonote with an inflationary (0.888~%) trailing emission.  As you can see, the price has fallen back down to pre-AP buying spree levels. 
 
I am interested in all cryptonotes, and Boolberry as well.  In addition to some advanced and unique features, I heard Boolberry was deflationary, which is great!  I think a major deflationary Cryptonote is necessary - this way there will be three major Cryptonote coins and each will have a type of trailing emission: deflationary, disinflationary, and inflationary.   As well, some core Boolberry members have written me to invite me to get interested in the community, which is flattering and I appreciate.
 
But I have reservations.  From what I have heard Boolberry features a 1% constant dev-mine: 
 
 
 
I understand that the miners can turn this off, but it will just be reassessed retroactively at a later time.  I apologize if this has been asked before, and if so please point me to any comments where this is explained/justified.  It seems thinly justifiable as a dev fund, and paints the entire project as more of a commercial endeavor rather than an altruistic one designed to create a worldwide private ledger.  I understand that everyone needs to eat, and even Aeon's primary dev Smooth has inherited a small treasure hoard of coins to use for support & development.  It's the recurring, non-voluntary nature of this that makes me cautious.  And I am forced to extrapolate that if it makes me cautious, it will make others cautious too down the road. 
 
So I'm reading over your ANN topic and some of your other materials; if you have anything to add to my thoughts, I'd love to hear it.

I am going to assume you have an issue with the FORM of the developer bounty not the amount, because Aeon has already donated a development bounty (over 400,000 coins) far in excess of the bounty that the current Boolberry dev min reward will generate for the entire lifetime of the coin.

crypto_zoidberg has done more than enough to earn his bounty so far and I think he should be paid more. The same way Aeon may be forked to add perpetual 0.8888% emission, Boolberry could fork to eliminate the dev mining bounty. Instead we could collect donations for certain benchmarks which IMHO should be for more than the current perpetual 1% reward.

Do you agree that the dev bounty amount should not not be in question (or is probably too low)?

I agree with you that a new incentive structure would be preferable and it should be created if we can reach a consensus.

100% agreed. The social layer is the only layer suited for this kind of things. This is probably one of the things that kept BBR from flying...

i didn't look at the source code
is the block reward reduce slowing with time ?

Yes. A difference in comparison to most other CryptoNotes is that is still deflationary, i.e. miners are supposed to be payed only be transaction fees in 100 years from now or so. I do not think anyone is sure how that tailing curve should look like so i suppose devs are patient with that change. Most of other CN projects kinda decided already what is best for time period 50-100years or so from now

Also, CZ used some of the boolbs from that 1% for bounties for ppl that contributed somehow to the project. E.g. I got 10ish block worth of boolbs at the time for putting effort in tutorial thread. And another point is, as the "premine" is deferred, if anything it further incentivise devs to take care of boolberry in the future. I completely agree with you smooth, tnx for correcting me

But you could hardly call it premine if devs will get 1% of block that will be mined in a week or in a month. There is not much that can be prefixed with pre there. Smooth has best name i've jet heard for it, "deferred premine", and you'll realize that the model actually gives incentives to devs to work on the project in the future, which does gives it an edge compared to other projects when speaking of probability of devs working harder on the code and adding features that add value to the network, while not being premined network.

With that said, other non-premined projects might actually be flawed by not having BBR model for keeping devs inherently motivated

I do agree with you, everything is about "critical masses". In this instance critical rate. As you pointed out, BBR market cap is not enough for 1% to even put food on devs tables so, on the average, they will not put all time into it. That would be unsustainable. But, the world is a place of highly complex incentives. Only common denominator they tend to have is decreasing social system cost actually.


Are you suggesting to vote on BBR type “premine” that are more transparently spent? I must say i completely agree with you on that, but BBR is as is, I do not fully understand your point. You are suggesting hard-fork new iteration in form of different project?.

If you are interested in CryptoNotes i suppose you understand that certain small level of privacy is necessary for people to find long-term "piece". It may even be that sooner the discovery of privacy sphere size (and incarnations of newly possible ecosystem types) happen may be better, as it reduces the price of the discovery process. May be even that something more general holds, that efficient communication channels number is roughly inverse function of possibility of a conflict between humans, which is excellent if such. People do on the average just wish to live decently in harmony with its surroundings after all. All life on the average is like that, it tends to get more efficient. Probbably wouldn't even exist otherwise if you think of it. As one might imagine, physical laws are the same. It all happens in a world that time decided on, which is such that it minimizes entropy production rate with given “consensus reaching” channel(s) of communication(s), i.e. in given laws of physics on a given problem. You seem also to understand that small privacy sphere must exist for people on the average to reach consistent harmony, kinda global consensus, to even have a chance of becoming stable long-lasting harmony for the humanity, if you think of it. By definition one might add. I would even add that provable egalitarianism is a consequence of every relations between humans having the same privacy sphere size, if we define egalitarianism and privacy sphere size such that one could clame it

In the real world, any relation betwean two parties, in which privacy sphere size ratio is several order of magnitude is prone to exploit, and if there are no checks and balances in the place it probably will be. It is kinda always so that, if no enough checks and balances (negative feedbacks) a system may not be stable. And it probably should be worked on to make it more efficient, that would make sense generally.

If you do critics that BBR is not egalitarian enough to satisfy CryptoNote standards, I disagree. But you make exilent point, that % that goes to devs is important. This may even be good mechanism for projects of a kind, to support themselves at thair different age: varaibile % of every block in a protocol that can reach consensus, and consensus on how to spend it. May even be that is enough to have consensus on to incentive relations of different kinds, it forces people to communicate on the issue that is in their common interest, and by it reduce possibility of tragedy of the commons. That may not be easy to achieve as then, for a realisation to happen, a critical mass in useability and simplicity must be achieved. So consensus reaching platform would have to have FUD attack filters in place, basically to reach with lowest noise level possible I suppose. That would be more egalitarian, but this is one of firts Darwinian experiments. Only God nows which one will live longer than others, before new generation solve more important problems, or larger number of significant problems while converging towars slower entrophy prodaction rate of any given process. In other words, it is as egalitarian as it is supposed to be atm.

I do agree that a tendency of  time realization is to minimize entropy production rate, i.e. production cost of a given process i suppose, so it humanity is converging toward such a world. When you think of it, the tendency to even communicate kinda happens naturally when you assume life as something that tries to reduce its entrophy production rate, actually for anything trat it can "understans" or comunicate, it organizes and everything in the corollary. When you look at from another angle, it is probably only solution class possible as other would lead to non-existance, i.e. are not stable in the long-run.

Thank you for sharing your concerns, and I have feeling a lot of people is working or at least considering how to solve those kind of problems.

I completely agree that certain level of transparency is important, as is certain level of privacy but for different reasons. As with anything in life, it is all about finding healthy balance, neither extreme can not be good.

In current model all funds are nontransparently controlled by devs, which is kinda private extreme. How would you suggest to correct the current model but to still remain some level of privacy so BBR can compete on the market (to still have a chance of reveling features when is in the best interest of the project, in order to even have possibility of an edge compared with competing projects)?

If the differed premine funds are controlled by some BBR committee, would you find acceptable if the % is larger then 1%? How much would you suggest? How would you suggest to structure the committee that decides on how to spend the funds, to have checks and balances that stop potential misuses?

And what makes you presume that next BBR update requires hard-fork anyway?