I have seen the following formulation of the proof:
If there is a computable function $\forall n\ge n_0:f(n) \ge BB(n)$ then $f(n)$ can be used as an upper bound for $BB(n)$, thus making it computable, which is a contradiction.
However, this is only possible if you know such $f(n)$ exactly. Suppose there is a set $S$ of all computable functions $f(n)$ such that $\forall n\ge n_0:f(n) \ge BB(n)$. The question is, how can one prove $S=\varnothing$?
Notice that so far just an existence of $f(n)\in S$ does not allow to compute $BB(n)$ - you need to also have a procedure that verifies if $f(n)\in S$ in a finite time. Considering that $BB(n)$ is undecidable, no such procedure exists, of course. It seems pretty similar to games where it is known that a winning strategy exists, but finding such a strategy is uncomputable.
None of that seems to be sufficient to prove $S=\varnothing$. Is there something I am missing?