Messages

196

Archived Proposals / Re: Biblepay Charity Commission and Sanctuaries

« on: February 28, 2018, 08:29:17 AM »

I couldn't have said it better, generally these were my thoughts as well.

But this thread got me thinking, is there a possibility to increase the superblock amount, at the cost of miners and/or sanctuary owners? For example, if we only took 10% from miners and 10% from sanctuary owners, we would have about 6,765,000 more BBP in a superblock, for a total of 12,400,000 BBP, which is more than double.

I thought about that also but the problem is that we will probably always be in the negative in the sense that even if did 100% was going to charities there will still be people in need. So the whole point of creating sanctuaries was so that we can also use a share of the 40% going to sanctuaries for charities and that we can slowly increase that over time.

197

Archived Proposals / Re: Biblepay Charity Commission and Sanctuaries

« on: February 28, 2018, 07:05:48 AM »

I guess I really didnt understand the idea fully at first, I was under the impression 100% of the donated funds were going to go towards saving up for a
 single Charity Sanctuary, one where 100% of the charity funds emitted by the sanctuary were then spent by this microorganization on more small charities - like alternatives to Compassion, or Los Angeles homeless etc.

But after Luke commented on the budget not being big enough, I am now under the impression this fund would be asking for 500K perpetually forever to start more and more sanctuaries? And it would never end?  I was going to vote for 1.5M over a few payments, if 100% went to a charity sanc.  But I wont be voting for perpetual payments.

As that would mean we need to trust a centralized entity to run this charity, and remove the decentralized nature of our current DAC - We are forming a decentralized autonomous charity for a reason - so that not one single entity can be in a position to hijack the funds from the foundation and we can continue to operate into the future by replacing the tiny individual loss.

One example of this is Mike might have the best intentions, but if his cold wallet ever got higher than when the pools was 4 million, if someone coerces the money from him, he will just tell us "Sorry, it was stolen".  Thats what we are trying to prevent by having everyone control a small part of biblepay.  (Which btw, is actually fine Mike if you do run One sanctuary, or One charity) like me, I am the guy who handles Compassion each month, and I resist handling more than one charity as then I become a single point of failure for biblepay.

Maybe i need more clarification on the idea, but it sounds like the idea is to force all new charity funds through Mikes organization first, he does due dilligence then spends it.  I think that due dilligence is already being done as we take on new charities.  Jaap just spent a whole week of his time on due diligence for Cameroon One for example and did an excellent job.

The plan is to have 100% of the rewards from the sanctuary be a backup to the main 10% or go to another charity. In other words, once this fund is established, we should not have to surpass the 10% like we do now. Due diligence is done beforehand so the funds will go to whichever charity we choose. The commission will certainly help to perform the due diligence when deciding on a new charity.

I understand the centralization aspect, for the fund, we can break it up once it reaches a certain value to another person. As for the sanctuaries, we can also have different people be the sanctuary admin and forward the funds when received. That way if someone's wallet is stolen, it will only be a partial loss and minimizes the centralization.

At this point, it appears the fund won't be receiving anything this month, if we add a charity every month we might not be able to have a sanctuary at all for a while. That is why I proposed to modify the governance system in the general discussion area so that even if the funds do not receive the full amount we might have a chance to receive part of it. I also need to make a proposal every month for the 500K BBP correct?

I also added a proposal to donated the left over rewards from the superblock to the charity fund so none of it is wasted.

198

Archived Proposals / Re: Biblepay Charity Commission and Sanctuaries

« on: February 27, 2018, 04:09:51 PM »

I like the idea of donating sanctuaries to charities. Not only does it make them active participants in the Biblepay community, but I guess it also makes sure that the sale of BBP on the market is more gradual, crashing the markets less (but I'm not really good at market economics, haha!).

On the other hand, before we do such a thing, we should be absolutely 100% sure we don't get scammed out of our sanctuaries, because once we donate one, it's up to the people that get it what they will do with it.

It's interesting that there could be a commission that handles the sanctuaries, or the charities themselves could get them. Both have pro's and con's.

I think donating masternodes is something we could do in certain circumstances. The point of keeping the masternodes inside the organization is so that it acts as a seed or investment so that we have the required funds to not only give, but to sustain the operation. If we only give masternodes away, then the operational cost would only be available from donations. Right now, the operational cost would still come from the superblock, but in the future, it would be much more efficient to pay the operational costs from the fund.

199

Archived Proposals / Re: Biblepay Charity Commission and Sanctuaries

« on: February 27, 2018, 03:18:07 PM »

Ok, so it is kind of like we start this thing, and then every month whatever is left over in the charity column we allocate to the commission? Great!

Yeah, it looks like in the short term it might be difficult to secure any funds at all. We need to do more work on the governance for it to work better. Please see my governance discussion in the general section.

200

Archived Proposals / Re: Biblepay Charity Commission and Sanctuaries

« on: February 27, 2018, 02:42:51 PM »

Hmmm, I see that this will be in the "Charity" column of the budget.

Cameroon One has asked for a Million BBP, and you are asking for 0.5 Million. Rob also will aks for some for the Compassion Orphans.
We cannot fit all three into this months superblock...

If the 500K cannot be obtained that is alright. The main point is starting the commission.

201

Archived Proposals / Re: Bitcointalk Advertising Round 3

« on: February 27, 2018, 02:04:08 PM »

Good work man!

202

Archived Proposals / Re: Biblepay Charity Commission and Sanctuaries

« on: February 27, 2018, 01:18:31 PM »

I really like this idea in concept.  I had thought along similar lines before the Sanctuaries were active.

The good aspects are pretty well documented, primarily compound interest and the hope that the coin appreciates in value faster than the Sanctuary returns drop (by both the deflationary emission schedule and the continual rise in Sanctuaries).  I don't see any real issue with the 50% limit, since 1) Sanctuaries couldn't be deployed very quickly while the coins price was low because a majority of the coin is needed to fund the current charitable obligations and 2) I don't share the idea that 200 is going to be the maximum number of sanctuaries.

The downside is as stated, a concentration of control and at the end of the day there has to be one owner of the Sanctuary.  So the compromise could easily be one of two things.  One would be a trusted member of the community runs it, two would be we actually give the Sanctuary to a charity that would be willing to run it.

The idea has a lot of merit and needs to be thought out, even if I don't think it should be done this cycle.

I understand the concern is that someone could run away with the money so I noted in the details section about 2 people keeping each other accountable for the funds wallet. I think what we need to do is start a non-profit so that people will be able to put more trust in us but that's something that can come later as we grow. If the Sanctuaries idea does not work out, I suggest we should still have a fund to accept donations and such.

203

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

« on: February 27, 2018, 12:02:06 PM »

You just must not have any non-arm processors and non-blank processors on the same CPID, in order to not be disqualified.

Oh, if you have a non arm it can't be on the same account? I didn't know that. I created the account on my desktop even though I'm not using it for computing but since it's in the list my Android phone will not be excluded?

204

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

« on: February 27, 2018, 09:21:43 AM »

10 Sanctuaries up!

205

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

« on: February 26, 2018, 10:57:05 PM »

As far as testing these things:
 -  Allow unbanked to be compensated without PODC Updates
We need to ask Rastiks to not shut down the cell phone, and not add any non-ARM rac.
Looking in my Sanctuary for Rastiks, I dont see your CPID in the list : fe553a955f0e21d46724858870014cbe.  (I found your CPID by looking at the unbanked report in the pool), anyway I see Rastiks is on the team, but your not associated in Biblepay (exec associate).  I see this by typing exec datalist dcc and do not see your CPID.  This would be a nice feature to test, so if either Rastiks could you please associate your cpid or someone else could start an unbanked CPID also?


- Fixed prayers diaplay in overview page  (they were invisible)
  Most tested - I can see exec testprayers shows the prayers and now they rotate on the overview page


- Added UTXO weight and Task Weight to Distributed Computing Page GUI
Looks good so far



- Added 7 day Magnitude and 1 day magnitude to exec getboincinfo
Now you can see both in exec getboincinfo.  This is mostly useful for debugging and seeing the magnitude trend.



- Fixed DC Association process to throw the correct distinct errors for INVALID_CREDENTIALS or ALREADY_IN_CHAIN
* Someone needs to test this



- Added cache purging system (to prevent memory bloating in the future)
* I tested this by writing special RPC commands, and its working, memory should not bloat

Dedicated Android Test Account:
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_user.php?userid=1985935
CPID: 4b7d2d64c88b32927a21ad20a57868e4

206

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

« on: February 26, 2018, 06:59:06 PM »

Ok, all, sorry about that, fixed.

Now please upgrade to 1.0.9.5b and it should sync.

I also added 'exec racdecay' if you want to play around with that, if you run it without a parameter it gives a report on a machine that will have 1000 RAC on a steady basis after 30 days, if you run it with a parameter, enter the amount of new credit the machine will crunch each day and it will give you the corresponding RAC the machine will have in N days in the report.

Updated 4 nodes to 1.0.9.5b. Let us know when the windows wallets are ready. Thanks.

207

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

« on: February 26, 2018, 02:58:42 PM »

Biblepay 1.0.9.5 - Mandatory upgrade for Testnet

- Allow unbanked to be compensated without PODC Updates
- Added exec unbanked report, this shows a list of the unbanked (used by Sanctuaries)
- Fixed prayers diaplay in overview page  (they were invisible)
- Added UTXO weight and Task Weight to Distributed Computing Page GUI
- Added 7 day Magnitude and 1 day magnitude to exec getboincinfo
- Fixed DC Association process to throw the correct distinct errors for INVALID_CREDENTIALS or ALREADY_IN_CHAIN
- Added cache purging system (to prevent memory bloating in the future)

* Windows is compiling *

Updating 3 nodes now and if there aren't any big issues I'll deploy the rest tomorrow.

208

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

« on: February 26, 2018, 02:39:14 PM »

Is it our system that is going to work differently?  Because BOINC says https://boinc.berkeley.edu/wiki/Computation_credit  "Recent average credit: The average number of Cobblestones per day granted recently. This average decreases by a factor of two every week."  And the only other discussions I've seen on line about BOINC compute it the same way.  So it that document out of date, am I misunderstanding what it says or is our system utilizing a different factor?

The RAC is calculated by BOINC I believe, is that correct Rob? I think we just need to clarify the formula that will be used.

RAC(new) = RAC(old)*d(t) + (1-d(t))*credit(new)
d(t) = e^(-ln(2)*t / 604800)

209

Archived Proposals / Re: Biblepay Charity Commission and Sanctuaries

« on: February 26, 2018, 02:06:12 PM »

I think this idea of using masternodes to grow the Charity funds is interesting!,

but it does put the coins into the hands of whoever runs these Charity masternodes,
meaning the network loses control and trusts 1 party with these masternodes and how they spend/use the coins from them,
whereas with the current budget system, sanctuaries control who gets coins from the superblock from voting.

So the question comes down to, does the benefit of compound interest outweigh the con of centralization of the funds.

But even so, when we do pay someone funds from the superblock, there is no guarantee they will use the funds for what they say they will do, so it comes more down to trust / building a relationship.

So far TMike has been very active in Testnet Testing and in the Discord the past month or so.

More questions for thought:

- How would voting on the use of the funds work?

- Worst case, What happens if you end up stepping away from the project or pass away?

- Is it possible to make sanctuary ownership or the payments from them more decentralized?

- For the work of screening and communicating with charities, communicating with us about the charities and maintaining/updating sanctuaries, what would your potential payrate be? (I want you to get paid for your work!)

- Rob, are you open to passing on your Compassion work? Or is that something you still want to do / be directly involved in?

- Any ideas on how to help charities with technical integration?

Just some questions, no need for anyone to answer, just things to think about.

As far as centralizing goes, I still think that as long as we don't exceed 50% of the total masternodes that this is not a problem. And if the commission masternodes start voting against the rules, someone can always make a proposal to disregard the commission's sanctuary votes. Also right now, the sanctuaries still have the voting right for the commissions various functions. Meaning if someone needs to be paid for work, they will still have to submit a proposal and which charities get picked is still up to the sanctuaries. Since the funds are suppose to back up the original 10%, in the future we should not exceed the 10% allocated and instead draw from the charity funds if there is a deficit.

For the wallet, I plan on having 2 people with access to it. The plan is to get a safe security box in both locations with the wallet passphrases engraved by laser onto a piece of metal. That way is anything happens to one person there is a backup.

Perhaps the keeper of the sanctuaries could post a public profile, I would not mind doing so.

210

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

« on: February 26, 2018, 10:09:21 AM »

Mike,
Do you really believe I dont know what RAC is, when I developed the magnitude formula? 

I said I started both at the same time, and you can compare two RAC's to each other if they have been running for 2 weeks, and yes, if they started at different times, you can compare two RACs together after 14 days - because that is the half life of the formula.

Rob, I think you know but it wasn't apparent from the conversation. Also, I could not find where you said you started both at the same time in the last 2 pages of this forum, and that was the main point. If I were to compared RAC numbers I would only compare after 4 weeks, at 2 weeks it's still only roughly 80% of what it should be. IF yo ustarted both at the same time then it wouldn't matter as much.