Messages

46

Archived Proposals / Re: PODC TEAM REQUIREMENTS

« on: November 22, 2019, 01:56:23 PM »

794k RAC between grcpool 1,2,3 pools means 33.7M BBP is required if RAC ^1.3

We don't have to think in binary terms. How about different exponential coefficients for BBP members and non-BBP crunchers? That way we would still be providing some BBP incentive to people beyond our ecosystem (thus raising some awareness), and still locking funds for collateral (supporting price). A coefficient of 1.5, for example, would require 10 times the BBP team collateral for an outsider (31M BBP for 100k RAC).

47

Archived Proposals / Re: BBP per RAC requirement for PODC2.0?

« on: October 31, 2019, 12:08:16 PM »

yes, but keep in mind that botnet probably will be below 5000rac /computer... so it will be supercool for him then

+1

A typical user with a 4C/8T processor that does other things on his pc and shuts it down for the night will definitely be under 5000 RAC

48

Archived Proposals / Re: BBP per RAC requirement for PODC2.0?

« on: October 28, 2019, 03:09:22 PM »

Do you think we could use an exponential function (i.e., not a static coefficient) in the calculation of the requirement?

Small crunchers would then have to stake very little for their RAC, while farmers would have to undertake serious investment.

49

Archived Proposals / Re: BiblePay Evolution 2.0 Changes for Future Growth

« on: October 20, 2019, 03:05:24 PM »

turning off qt is a good idea.



is world community grid (wcg) a possibility instead of rosetta? there are projects that align with children, cancer (smash childhood cancer), and improving infrastructure in places where we support orphans (Africa) :
https://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/research/viewAllProjects.do?proj=comp

I would second to that based on 2 facts:

1. WCG enables the user to focus his donated resources to a certain subproject of interest (AIDS, childhood cancer etc)
2. Rosetta tasks are rather memory-heavy and long-duration compared to a mix of WCG tasks, and consume more space on the harddrive.

In summary, including WCG in the mix - if PoDC returns - enables contribution from a wider range of users, from laptop owners to SBC-crunchers with freedom to associate with a certain area of research.

If only one project would be selected, then I would vote for WCG.

50

Archived Proposals / Re: The Future of PODC - Proof of Distributed Computing

« on: March 03, 2019, 03:05:05 PM »

For such a vocal topic I find it unusual no one is voting on the sanctuary vote.

And that we only have a couple people commenting.

I believe this is partly (if not mostly) because people think it's going to happen no matter what they say. I do not consider BBP a community-driven project anymore. It is effectively a one-man-show. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but many investors (including me) feel safer in an environment of collective mind, in which democracy thrives and teams with contingency plans exist.

Such a discussion would make much more sense if we had POG running successfully for a while, with proven increase in user count, and positive effect on prices.

Other investors have voiced concerns about where we are standing, as in here: https://forum.biblepay.org/index.php?topic=368.msg5417#msg5417

It would have been nice to see an answer from the lead developer there. Yet, you seem to be consumed with the desire to bring POG live at full scale. I still do not get the whole idea behind it. I tested it with different strategies, and I see I can make 5:1 gains on average; which means I will keep getting similar returns to PoDC if I keep my stake in the system. What I do not understand is, how this system will bring in the thousands of new users you keep mentioning. (Even if they come, me and the like will drive difficulty up to upsetting levels for them?)

I do not want to keep it long; resistance is futile. Just let us know which block height you intend to make the switch at.

51

Archived Proposals / Re: Mass Adoption for BiblePay II

« on: December 04, 2018, 03:47:33 PM »

Yes in theory,   currently my wallet is at 109% of full stake and is  still consolidating for podc updates.  Just raising it as an issue so we can have a solution early on

Hmm, we might need a second wallet for that then (unless a fix cannot be made).

By the way, being able to do POG on mobile wallets would be perfect

52

Archived Proposals / Re: Mass Adoption for BiblePay II

« on: December 04, 2018, 02:36:57 PM »

My only concern with using it on the POBH side is it directly competes with PODC..

PODC combines coins into one for the updates, so only folks not working on PODC could participate in POG, this would need to be addressed somehow.

Well if they (we) are beyond full stake, and the podcupdates are sending a fixed amount, then we could do POG with the rest, is that correct?

53

Archived Proposals / Re: Mass Adoption for BiblePay II

« on: December 04, 2018, 01:48:33 PM »

I think in addition to that we can phase this in two phases.  We go live with POG in POBH only then stay with it for a quarter and fix any critical issues before we attempt to transition from PODC to POG (during the second mandatory).

That would be a good approach; I believe Sunk also supports this idea. We have nothing to lose when replacing POBH with POG. If this is successful, I will also support a change to the budget proportions of the algos (i.e., a reduction of PODC share and an increase of POG share).

54

Archived Proposals / Re: Mass Adoption for BiblePay II

« on: December 03, 2018, 04:59:12 PM »

PoG if it were to be selected (which I really feel is the wish of the Dev) one issue I see is it would require a long test period as it's a very novel solution.  The issue is we don't have very many users, and very very few participate in the test net.  So my fear is there will be loopholes and bugs that we won't catch but someone will exploit.  And my real fear is there will be many such bugs (as it's a novel system and having eight or ten people test it won't expose nearly enough issues), which could mean a series of exploits (and disproportionate gains for the exploiters) followed by hot-fixes and unplanned mandatory releases which could put our markets off line.

In short, even if PoG is the next billion dollar idea, the BBP community lacks the resources to adequately test it.

+1, right on the money again   

55

Archived Proposals / Re: Mass Adoption for BiblePay II

« on: December 02, 2018, 03:53:13 PM »

Thanks for the welcome and support! You have some valid concerns as a stake holder with money on the line. However, aren't they speculative concerns? What makes you so certain the market price would crash? And, what makes you so certain that even if it did have a short term correction due to the change that it would not then perform strongly as a result of the change after that?

I do not speculate, I calculate

The amount of BBP staked today due to PODC is well over 100M.

If PODC is gone, stake requirement will also be gone. It is only logical to assume some of the holders will sell off their BBP then. (Yes, some will bury it into masternodes, but we cannot assume all will do that.)

Any sales with today's weak buy board will push the price down (3 satoshis or less).

It is hoped that POG-2 will bring in cash (via new users), but as said, that is hope. There is not even an estimate on how many new users will bring in how much cash.

I understand and agree with the notion of a drop in the short term which would bring in growth for the long term; but we need to clarify what is short term and what is long term. This is the crypto world, and most people in this world would say one year is long term. That is a definition I tend to agree with. If we are on the same page about the term, then fine - I can hold on to my coins for a year for a rise back to 30+ satoshis (That was where I jumped on the boat) 

Having said that, POG-2 may be tuned to promote staking  further, such that longer-term hodlers of coins get a bigger return when they tithe. This would reduce the sell pressure created by PODC staking gone. This however, would be real life repeating itself here: "rich gets richer". Well, I guess we cannot really escape basic principles of life even in the crypto world

56

Archived Proposals / Re: Mass Adoption for BiblePay II

« on: December 01, 2018, 04:54:02 PM »

I support a POG approach. Not only can PODC be difficult to understand, but it is not accessible to everyone either because of the high RAC requirements. I'm a new user who has been crunching numbers on BOINC for weeks with a low-end machine running Linux and I still have yet to earn the least little bit of BBP because my RAC never got higher than 97 due to a couple of power failures and such.

I would be more than happy to participate in a system that rewards you based on your giving rather than being based on who can crunch the most numbers because they have the best computer. Tithing is a small price to pay in order to be able to participate in the rewards of mining along with everyone else and by tithing I still get to help people the same way I would by crunching numbers for cancer except that the help is now and not some future maybe that might happen if I crunch numbers long enough.

Besides all this, I've noticed that the general consensus seems to be that if we let go of PODC then we will lose the "we fight cancer" mantra. So what? We aren't the only ones with that mantra. It's not that unique. Gridcoin, Curecoin, MedicCoin and FoldingCoin all have the same mantra and so there a number of currencies for people to choose from. POG, however, IS unique and it is what will make BBP stand out from the rest. And, you know what? We still get to keep the basic underlying mantra that we HELP PEOPLE through tithing.

Also, I've seen the argument be advanced somewhere that they don't think POG will gain us a significant amount of followers enough to make the change worth it, but simply staying the way things are won't make a significant impact either. So, it's well worth the risk to try something new and innovative, especially when I've just proven that even if you make things easier with PODC, you will still be excluding an entire portion of potential followers who can't participate because they are too poor to afford a decent PC. Isn't the whole point of BBP to help the poor, or is it only to cater to investors, and those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo? I will leave that for voters to decide for themselves in good conscience. Thanks for allowing me to comment.

First of all, welcome to the community !

Getting started with PODC may be a bit complex and painful, but there are people eager to help out starters (or experimenters) on our discord. I myself owe them a lot. I see you are upset with what your machine crunches out; please know there are many ways to kickstart BOINCing, including free cloud instances from Amazon and such. If you fail to succeed in them, I will be more than happy to assign a couple of my cpu cores to your account for a while so that you start seeing BBP coming your way. All you have to do is share with me your weak account key - don't worry, I cannot make any changes to your account with that key, apart from adding machines 

We all want to have more and happy members in this team. And I respect everyone here, even Slovakia - who is known to have a devilish temper

All I would hope for in return is similar respect; not to me but to the entire ecosystem with its stake holders. I am a stake holder, with thousands of USD invested into BBP. Any proposal that would destroy the market price, including removal of the staking requirement, is a proposal I cannot support. I want to help the orphans, contribute to science, and make money if possible. But lose money? God forbid.

57

Archived Proposals / Re: Mass Adoption for BiblePay

« on: November 21, 2018, 08:57:55 PM »

Why does a good samiritan want to join BiblePay when there are vehicles outside of BiblePay to give without expecting something in return? Its far simpler to put down a recurring monthly credit card or bank transfer than to deal with a crypto wallet. I guess you'd have to explain how to attract a crowd that would find joining BiblePay (even with PoG) far more difficult than just doing a recurring payment elsewhere.

@Rob - How is PoG going to work with recurring tithing? Is this going to be a superblock daily (e.g. 205 blocks?) and not actually a 24 hour day? The drift and 7 minute average blocks are not conducive to a 24 hour day y'know.

Why would people donate via BBP instead of just giving the cash to the needy?

It is simple: Biblepay is "leveraged good". It is an ecosystem that not only helps the needy, but also helps scientific research while providing a potential gain for donors who may wish a monetary return and feeding a bunch of miners for facilitating all that (call it creation of employment). This is why I am against removing the science part - that would reduce the leverage.

To make it simpler: donating $30  to the ecosystem will create good worth $40, $100, or even the jackpot - the cure for cancer! I am not looking at our electric bills only as expense items in our calc sheet. They are lottery tickets for the future of humanity. The cure for any disease is priceless. Converting those bills to donations for orphans has no leverage (i.e., no more lottery  tickets). Sustaining the ecosystem, on the other hand, I mean buying lottery tickets every month and keeping the nice decentralized community alive and also supporting our orphans, will be a great success story. One remembered for generations, perhaps ?

58

Archived Proposals / Re: Mass Adoption for BiblePay

« on: November 21, 2018, 07:43:15 PM »

So a few thoughts.

One: This poll needs another option of Change nothing

Two: In a healthy coin, the majority of users are NOT mining, so a more technical mining process to me is acceptable.  The guides that are out right now are decent, we could use a few videos and I think that would let 90% of non-beginner computer users mine without issues.  Beginner computer users are going to struggle with the notion of crypto, let alone running a wallet so I'm not worried about mining being too technical for them.

Three: Changing the way this coin works for a third time is likely to do more harm than good unless the new method is dead simple and someone massively increases our user base.  It makes our collective knowledge of how to troubleshoot out of date and requires an entirely new set of documentation to be developed or at least modified.

I'm not opposed to a change, but know another change comes with a great cost and there is little guarantee we'll see the price improve which would be the primary reason to change.  In fact, I believe eliminating PoDC would cause the markets to crash pretty hard as the staked coins would have basically three outlets, keep, Sanctuary or sell.  There is roughly 200M coins tied up in Stake, if even one third of those suddenly hit the market, we're at 1 sat or lower.  If most went to Sanctuaries, then you're looking at a potential to jump from 400 to 500 or more pretty much overnight (reducing our ROI to less than 40% annually, which becomes a tougher sell for investors).  So I don't see a lot of benefit to a new system unless it is so amazing we'd be insane not to do it.  And I just don't see that among the choices.

Dear West,

I wish I knew you in person, cause anytime you write something I think "OMG that makes total sense - the guy knows what he's talking about!"

I am not -yet- going to go into how unsimple POG is if you want to maximize your returns (which means the newbies we are hoping to recruit will soon start hating whales and the system might end up making rich richer - of course in terms of BBP, cause otherwise we are all going fiat bankrupt as we speak) . I will rather point to a fundamental relationship that governs corporate life, daily life and -to a certain  extent- religion: DEMAND vs SUPPLY. Here we are trying to sell something, right? I myself boil this to "the potential of doing good while earning (if one wants to)". There are many people on this world that are trying to help out the not-so-fortunate ones even without any returns. All we have to do is get some of these on board (increasing demand). With our decreasing monthly introduced supply, the equation will yield higher prices for the coin.

Now, my question is: "Are these good samaritans waiting for BBP algorithm/mechanics to get simpler to jump on the train, or are they simply unaware such a coin exists?" I tend to believe in the second part. If there are such good samaritans on the world (not only Christians), and if we are supporting orphans, and if we are able to prove it to anyone who considers donating, then the real challenge becomes connecting to these people - via worship places, opinion leaders, heck even politicians.

Assuming demand will be tapped into, may I suggest a burning mechanism that would decrease supply? In case donors are not interested in crypto or returns at all, then the cash coming in can be converted to BBP over the markets and then burnt. It sounds like destroying their money, but in effect, it will be increasing the coin price which means we will have more fiat at the end of the month when we are converting the orphan fund to USD  before transferring to charities. Sounds crazy, but mathematically sound (and morally proper as long as they understand how the system works their donations).

59

Archived Proposals / Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability

« on: August 30, 2018, 09:35:22 AM »

I think the problem is the BBP users that are power mining are the least likely to care less about the stats.  So they are the ones more likely to cheat the system, and they also have the most to gain, they are also the ones most likely to jump to GRC to improve their ROI (they'll have the time and incentive to figure it out) by double dipping if the Team Requirement is eliminated.

So if user BBP (and I'm not trying to sully this user and claim they would do this with 100% certainty) broke up their fleet of machines into 300 separate users, they then could field roughly 18 new Sanctuaries, which would be a very positive increase in ROI and certainly worth the hassle.  Or worse, suddenly have 28M BBP for sale, and destroy the current price wall.

Basically, anyone with enough incentive to cheat the system is going to be very tempted.  And if 8 of the top 10 suddenly starts breaking things up to stay under the cap, then the bulk of the staked BBP will be free to flow into either Sanctuaries (reducing their yield for everyone else) or to the market (putting even more downward pressure on the price).

In the end, the issue is, and again, I point to Byteball, I'd wager any BBP person doing Byteball at WCG is not following their development nor do they (with very few exceptions) care about that coin, other than it would be nicer if it was higher priced so they could make more when they sell.  But I'll wager none of our team has bought any sizable quantity of Byteball due to their introduction to it (so they've not become added value investors) and more likely than not are selling putting downward pressure on that coin.  My fear is opening the team requirement will only serve to add profit takers to our ranks, and revamping the staking is not as necessary as it once might have been due to BBPPool.

Dear All,

Here is the executive summary of what I will say: "I strongly second to what West says."

Here is the content for more curious:

I came over to BBP from Gridcoin. Used to crunch about 3-4% of the project credits then with all my CPUs and GPUs dedicated to Boinc. I might say I was in that community (silently) since my day 2 of crypto mining. I like the idea of earning crypto through distributed computing since we are helping science and not simply burning power and crunching crypto puzzles. Then again, GRC profitability fell deeply in Feb-March and I started seeking for alternatives. This was about the time you were switching over to PoDC, Made my math, converted some of my coins for collateral, and been following the development since then. I actually feel even better than in GRC times, since this project also benefits orphans on top of helping scientists. I consider that double-dipping in the sense of being good and giving.

I am not a Christian, yet I believe Jesus is a prophet. I am not sharing pro-Trump sentiments, but -believe it or not- when I see on the wallet that someone is requesting prayers for their loved ones' healing, I do pray for them. This , I think, is a third way of good this coin is doing. God is Love, for anyone and anything.

See, I am both an investor and believer in PART of the causes of this coin. With all sincerity, I am asking you guys not to lift the stake requirement. First thing you will see then is, people dismantling accounts to release the coins required for staking. I know I will do. All my machines are home-built and home-maintained, and reformatting everything and starting to crunch Boinc under a new account takes approx. 90 minutes per machine. Then I will start double-dipping with GRC. Hard to believe there aren't other computer-savvy guys that will do the same. Now, I do not have an intention if that happens to sell all my coins and go away (will probably setup masternodes with the released coins), but there is no telling what these other guys will do (dumping, OMG!!).

As a summary, lifting the team requirement will not hurt us, but lifting the stake requirement may turn fatal.

I wished to remain a silent member of this community, but now I see the future of the orphans and my investment are at stake, and decided to drop my bit on the table.

I believe what will push this project beyond the limits of the bear market and provide long-term growth is adoption by the ordinary people (shoppers, or donators that do not even need to maintain a wallet and know the internals of the algorithm - not the miners).

I have been tinkering about a real-world use case that would enable shopping with certain cryptocoins with extra discount (BBP may be one of them), that has potential to increase adoption rate and thus create demand for the favored coins. Will let you know if it ever flies.

Best Regards, and Vaya con Dios