The Good:

I still am fond the idea of blockchain-based PoW, as it aligns incentives which otherwise may at best fail to be mutual reinforcing or at worst may conflict.  However, I've also come to reject the entire notion of raising the barriers to ASIC production, as that arms race makes the market less competitive/perfect.  Simple PoWs like sha256 are best, so there is (at least initially) a more level playing field.

The nice thing about being at rock bottom abandonware status is there is nowhere to go but up.

Near-death experiences are good for a coin's antifragility, if it survives.  And CZ is still alive and posting, so he could return.

Plus there is a loyal community and the occasional new user/investor, as your post demonstrates.


The Bad:

All that stuff about CZ coming back once he finished Louis d'or never happened.  The fact he's collecting a dev tax is terrible optics, if not ethics.  Even if he returns now, people will suspect he was intentionally running the price down to accumulate.

1Blockologist is shady and part of the Rune (LOL Vikings LOL death metal LOL D&D LOL Druids LOL) crew.  He's not getting along with CZ, although I am not 100% sure he's not CZ and just playing Sybil to get his way on the rejected Rune rebrand.

Development is light years (IE 1000s of programmer hours) behind Monero (especially), Duck/Dark/DigitalNote, and maybe even Bytecoin.

Exchange volume is trivial.  Despite my emotional investment in admiring their technology, I got out of the hobby coins lacking critical mass and useful trade volume (BBR, XCN, XPM, VIA).


The Ugly:

I expect the price will continue to drop as emission dilutes waning investor interest, in standard altcoin fashion.

If left as is, BBR will be lack many significant features vs Monero (RingCT, LMDB, integrated address, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc).

The only path forward would be to fork Monero (or maybe Bytecoin) and replace the PoW with Wild Keccak, but IDK if CZ would be willing to swallow is pride and take that step, much less stick around to keep BBR updated with the latest commits.


The Worst:

Bytecoin, Duck/Dark/DigitalNote, and BBR are suspected to all be creations of the same group, and all display the same damning characteristic of manipulative emission.

BCN had a faked early emission, XDN had a ridiculously quick emission, and BBR while being fairly launched with a slow emission has been seemingly abandoned for most of the last 2 years, which as kept the volume low and price depressed (pumps and dumps notwithstanding).


Conclusion:

If you want to invest in a legit Cryptonote coin, Monero and Aeon are the only two options AFAIK.

<,1Blockologist is shady and part of the Rune (LOL Vikings LOL death metal LOL D&D LOL Druids LOL) crew>>

What crew is this? Are you saying that 1blockologist was/is involved with shady crypto pump&dumps? Proof?

You shouldn't speak to childs this way, asshole.

Whenever you speak in the name of "people", I want to known who are them.

<
1block calls his fork "Rune edition."  IS THAT ENOUGH PROOF FOR YOU?>

No. Actually that is not proof of anything to me, that is why I asked. Your non-specific assertions are baseless and amount to FUD from my perspective.

What do you believe 1blockologist is a part of or has done that is bad?

What is the problem with BBR emission?

Ok So what if 1blockologist is part of that rebrand group?

Why should anyone really care? It looks like the price is the same as when 1block "took over", and people are talking about BBR at least.

What we need is solid codebase work, but no one seems competent enough to make substantial changes.

The team that was working with CZ in the past on BBR seems uncommitted at this point, so who accumulates coins and such seems irrelevant.

iCEBREAKER, WINDJC, papa_lazzarou, thanks for taking the time out to reply.

Some interesting thoughts and opinions from yourselves and a few others since i posted my question, 1Block has also made a statement regarding some of the recent posts on the BTC via the slack channel:

The speculation on the bitcointalk thread is inaccurate
The wild keccak algorithm doesn't make boolberry development harder
It's been pretty easy to do the updates that have been made already, most of which is copied from monero. The testing and troubleshooting has taken longer
There's research and fact finding necessary, and unforeseen issues like the seed nodes going down
I'll set up seed node redundancies in a few weeks
In the same manner that monero does
If other developers are interested in the effort, please have them contact me as I know where they would be best used
Most of it is around Web services and parallel infrastructure, not boolberry core.

Me personally i would like either you guys all to come and join the slack channel that was started by mbe24 and get these type of discussions brought up or else 1Block to come on here and respond to all that has been said.

Don't know if it is all the talk here or what but have you seen the spike on polo in the past hr r so?

Again thanks for response

I'm still buying, all about lowering my avg buy price now

Greetings fellow traders,

We're working on an in-depth interview with crypto_zoidberg that we'll be publishing on coinopoly.xyz in the near future. The goal of the interview is to help bring clarity to the speculation surrounding the future of Boolberry.

Hi.
Thats exactly what happened though

I read alot of your posts and there are several assumptions that lead to conclusions hard to give rebuttals to, so I'll try to address the assumptions.

First and foremost it seems you are conflating software fork with blockchain fork. Software forks are part of open source development and is the only way you, I or anyone can make modifications to open source projects like Boolberry. None of the modifications that have been done cause forks in thr blockchain. Development is ongoing, you can follow on github, or the bi weekly updates, or slack, and we havent released any binaries because it isnt ready yet. You can compile from source and run the "rune" edition if you want right now, like others do. There is also a java boolberry client in development too that you can build from source. It would be misinformed to say it failed when nothing was released, it is an open source project.

These seem to be things shaking your confidence in boolberry for reasons that are irrelevant. The updated client allows for other services (web wallets, block explorers, bitsquare, etc). This isnt bitcoin unlimited, there is no blockchain fork. The c++ client that CZ, clintar2 , and more originally worked on is being updated so that I and others can build more infrastructure on top of it, whether other people use it or not. It doesnt effect how transactions are relayed across the network, so it is not a blockchain fork. Im not really sure how many ways to spell this out, but it seems misunderstanding of how blockchains work is shaking confidence in people looking for a leader.

Nothing that I or CZ have ever done or will do will cause a fork in the boolberry blockchain. There is already an open request to merge the code changes in my fork with his open source repository. There is also a work in progress java client being written from scratch in javajared's github repo, because he wants to. This is just extra information to help you amd others form objective opinions before some of the farfetched conclusions Ive been reading. A lot of what Ive been reading just dont matter, but if it is really creating the semblance of a cloud over the viability of this project then Im trying to address them.

CZ's code is really good, having dug through it over the last few months, and I and others continue to develop on top of it mostly pulling code from Monero. There are not "1000 developer hours" necessary to bring this network up to speed.

It would be great to work more closely with CZ, but it is still surprising to me that you and others are looking for an endorsement despite all the transparency into what is going on and the decentralized nature of blockchains. I wouldnt count on that at this point, also doesnt matter. If CZ actually did push updates to the open source code (this hasnt happened since september 2015), I will merge those changes in to the copy I work on. It would push the project ahead, he suggested he has done the database work that I want to do. The copy I have has RPC server updates. It is only a net positive, I haven't felt the need to explain this but now I see other peoples line of thinking, so I hope that helps.

Second, regarding RUNE and a previous dwarven name change. Myself and other analysts skimmed threads about boolberry and saw that thread. For distinctive purposes the name is just homage to that point in time. The official stance is that my company experiences nothing but apathy to drama related to it in this community. Ive been consistent about the utility and scarcity improvements that I see here and will continue improving the client towards. We can talk about branding when applicable, it is primarily to let others know the project isnt dead.

Come to the slack channel on occassion. It will be easier to chat there about your remaining concerns. Feel free to post our conversations here for transparency.