Messages

331

TestNet Discussion Archive / Re: BIBLEPAY -TESTNET TESTING THREAD-Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing(Cancer Research)

« on: March 20, 2018, 09:59:53 AM »

Hmmm, it looks like these transactions were signed by a wallet not associated to the CPID - another words, to the foreign nodes these transactions look forged.

The first few on the list were signed by BE2XrQurnfzbqAGgMX9F8dXEyReML2Zr6H, yet when I look in the chain, exec search dcc 96892, I see your CPID is associated with a different public wallet key.

The controller doing the podcupdate should be the one associated with the CPID.

(Otherwise nodes will disregard your podcupdates as if the signature is forged).

EDIT: Whats the TXID of the one you just did successfully, I can check it?

I don't really know which is the last one that worked, How can I know? to me all seem exactly the same.

And I have been using the same address for a week without a problem. In fact I got payments until yesterday ...

Edit: ok I will start again with a "new" wallet file and re-associate from scratch to avoid interferences with other addresses.

332

TestNet Discussion Archive / Re: BIBLEPAY -TESTNET TESTING THREAD-Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing(Cancer Research)

« on: March 20, 2018, 09:42:01 AM »

I dont see you sending any UTXO weight out on the network:
exec search utxoweight 9689

Although I do see your cpid is present... 
I would try 'exec podcupdate true'
Lets see what kind of error you receive. 

With no UTXO stake, the utxoweight will remain 0, resulting in no superblock payments and no daily magnitude.

I understand, but that's the issue because I've been sending Podc updates regularly... I post the PoDC update txids since yesterday
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Some of them were forced

I tried to re-associate but nothing. I'll try podcupdate true and see..

Edit:

Code: [Select]

exec podcupdate true

{
  "Command": "podcupdate",
  "PODCUpdate": "Processed (128) over 1 CPID(s) successfully."
}


I will wait and see.

By the way I remember the only change is that yesterday afternoon I password locked the wallet. But when I reloaded I unlocked it for PoDC. I don't know if it may be the cause.

333

TestNet Discussion Archive / Re: BIBLEPAY -TESTNET TESTING THREAD-Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing(Cancer Research)

« on: March 20, 2018, 04:04:38 AM »

I don't know what happened but I got dropped down from the next payment list. I see utxoamount=0 even if PoDC payments have been happening for the latest hours without apparent trouble. I even changed utxoamount=100001 in conf file just in case...

Code: [Select]

exec getboincinfo
{
  "Command": "getboincinfo",
  "CPID": "96892ec0fc8a2710fa84f26c9c84cd3e",
  "Address": "BE2XrQurnfzbqAGgMX9F8dXEyReML2Zr6H",
  "CPIDS": "96892ec0fc8a2710fa84f26c9c84cd3e;",
  "CPID-Age (hours)": 422649,
  "NextSuperblockHeight": 35670,
  "NextSuperblockBudget": 1197260,
  "96892ec0fc8a2710fa84f26c9c84cd3e_ADDRESS": "BE2XrQurnfzbqAGgMX9F8dXEyReML2Zr6H",
  "96892ec0fc8a2710fa84f26c9c84cd3e_RAC": 19239.3,
  "96892ec0fc8a2710fa84f26c9c84cd3e_TEAM": 15044,
  "96892ec0fc8a2710fa84f26c9c84cd3e_TaskWeight": 100,
  "96892ec0fc8a2710fa84f26c9c84cd3e_UTXOWeight": 0,
  "Total_RAC": 19239.3,
  "Total Payments (One Day)": 5543,
  "Total Payments (One Week)": 70287,
  "Total Budget (One Day)": 1197260,
  "Total Budget (One Week)": 13036836,
  "Superblock Count (One Week)": 7,
  "Superblock Hit Count (One Week)": 7,
  "Superblock List": "35465,35260,35055,34850,34645,34440,34235",
  "Last Superblock Height": 35465,
  "Last Superblock Budget": 1197260,
  "Last Superblock Payment": 5543,
  "Magnitude (One-Day)": 4.629737901541854,
  "Magnitude (One-Week)": 5.391415524441666
}

Any ideas? Thank you

334

Archived Proposals / Re: Development and Documentation: Work by Lichtsucher Feb/Mar

« on: March 20, 2018, 03:55:04 AM »

I've contacted Coinomi, but they are too expensive at the moment. And Slovakia found a developer a while back and Rob contacted him, but he didn't seem to have any experience with crypto (you could ask Rob for certainty).

But I can say that there aren't any proposals and that development for a mobile wallet is certainly very welcome at this moment 

You can add a proposal if you want, You can find instructions for that here:
http://wiki.biblepay.org/Create_Sanctuary_2#SUBMIT_PROPOSAL

Someone else can also add a proposal for you if you don't have enough BBP in the pool at this moment.

I would suggest that you at least show some coding or other work you've done before adding the proposal, because otherwise it would be hard for sanctuary owners to see that you're legit and serious about this.

The amount of BBP you get is up to you, but of course, the sanctuaries will have to vote on it, so it should be reasonable. We can discuss how much is fair in these forums beforehand if you'd like.

Maybe it's best if you create a new topic in the 'production proposal' section for this, and we can discuss further there 

As you may imagine I don't want to start a project from scratch, I will do a previous research on which project I would fork from.

My thoughts are now closer to BreadWallet than Electrum. It already has Android+iOS versions and they don't rely on 3rd party servers but rather connect to the networks themselves as thin clients. For me this would be the optimal approach.

So after I do this research, see things clear, and calculate the amount of work, I will submit the proposal.
Thanks for your attention.

335

Archived Proposals / Re: Development and Documentation: Work by Lichtsucher Feb/Mar

« on: March 20, 2018, 03:02:47 AM »

Is there a budget for an iOS wallet app? I will have some holidays soon and perhaps I'm crazy enough to go for it. 

Self-quoting: are there already proposals to develop mobile BBP wallets? Or do I have to create new ones myself? Thank you

336

Archived Proposals / Re: Development and Documentation: Work by Lichtsucher Feb/Mar

« on: March 19, 2018, 08:25:28 AM »

Definitely! I've been in contact with Coinomi (who are releasing and iOS app soon (tm)), but their fees are just too high for us at the moment (they told me it's 7.5 BTC for BBP integration in their wallet).

Do you also have experience with Android by any chance?

A bit, but not as much as with iOS. I can try it anyway, and start with the Android version (which I think could be more demanded at this moment). 

337

Archived Proposals / Re: Development and Documentation: Work by Lichtsucher Feb/Mar

« on: March 19, 2018, 07:02:33 AM »

Is there a budget for an iOS wallet app? I will have some holidays soon and perhaps I'm crazy enough to go for it. 

338

Archived Proposals / Re: New Exchange Proposal - Add new Biblepay Exchange

« on: March 16, 2018, 07:59:34 AM »

Please create it Jaap, Im all for it, these higher volume exchanges want a TON of money to get listed

But some of the bigger ones like Poloniex and Binance don't have listing fees!.

The problem is that some serious paperwork needs to be done for them to even consider the listing.

I have some experience preparing "business plans" papers so I can offer my help. However, I would need to cooperate closely with you Togo and Rob.

Do you want us to try?

339

Archived Proposals / Re: New Exchange Proposal - Add new Biblepay Exchange

« on: March 15, 2018, 06:40:33 AM »

Any hope to aim for another exchange (after we get a stable situation)?

What's the temptative budget range?

Some ideas:

CryptoBridge (1 BTC)
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScvq_sKqLGDFtHT8xB_a5yHLVz69ljJ_0Utk8V5Qs_LZVfUBg/viewform

Also, could it be interesting to aim higher to bigger exchanges? Some of them have no fees and I think that with PoDC and it's Charity vision, BBP has already a very interesting project to offer to the world. We can at least try it :-)

Poloniex (no fee)
https://poloniex.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/1000229325-how-can-i-get-a-coin-listed-on-poloniex-

Binance (no fee)
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfhibOzGG7I-JIw0Ofj3kFEj9oMhnR-GkajMPhJp7H1URyHJA/viewform

340

Archived Proposals / Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining

« on: March 15, 2018, 05:44:54 AM »

Not sure how you can come to the conclusion Im here for the 1% or the botnet LOL

I was not targeting you in my comments, it was just an open thought.

341

Archived Proposals / Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining

« on: March 14, 2018, 06:54:19 AM »

My humble opinion:

Even though we know that helping orphans/distressed people is a comforting feeling, we must also watch for the investor interest.

Remember, no investors (mining, MN, traders...) = no coin = no help for the needy

The average investor is our friend, not our enemy. We don't have to scare or fear them, we need to manage them so there is no room for unnecessary greed, but for healthy returns.

To distribute wealth, first we need to create it. So I agree with some of T-Mike points.

342

Archived Proposals / Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining

« on: March 12, 2018, 10:38:40 AM »

I'm also for the staking-per-RAC idea.

It allows decoupling users from what other team members are doing (as it would happen with a relative number as magnitude). It can also boost the coin price and incentives to keep it instead selling it.

You add more CPU power = you must stake more BBP. 

We can even afford to change the number of BBP per RAC unit in the future as we see the evolution of this new PoDC system (for example if the overall RAC of the team surpasses the amount of BBP in circulation).

343

TestNet Discussion Archive / Re: BIBLEPAY -TESTNET TESTING THREAD-Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing(Cancer Research)

« on: March 12, 2018, 07:49:58 AM »

No, its not a PODC bug, we iterate through your UTXOs and honor the locks.  I would check to ensure you have re-locked your hot funds during each start.

Do you have a masternode.conf file set up with the Sanc's hot txid in it?

In one PC I do, but not in the other wallet with the sanc. controller address. So it's possible that for this wallet that UTXO was not locked.

344

TestNet Discussion Archive / Re: BIBLEPAY -TESTNET TESTING THREAD-Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing(Cancer Research)

« on: March 12, 2018, 12:17:10 AM »

I think we have a bug- PODC stake has used my 1550001 BBP of my sanc for staking, even if it's supposed to be locked

See:
http://explorer.biblepay.org:3001/tx/0321cce7ad6a91a707c4512e32c1bd13d31754233e7cd0403b7dee7face0c4d8

Now my sanc is "missing" :-(

Edit: I think it's because I cloned the wallet into another PC. Anyway, the lock enforcement should work at the blockchain level I think.

345

Archived Proposals / Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining

« on: March 11, 2018, 05:29:03 AM »

Our Japanese friend probably has already 10M, and if he was our famous "botnet" guy (I would bet on that safely), he probably made more than 700k a day on the previous heat mining phase.

Not much we can do against that, even introducing any staking schema (which is still a good idea on itself)