Messages

46

Archived Proposals / Re: BiblePay Future Hash Algorithm for CPUs

« on: January 26, 2020, 02:45:49 PM »

Options 2 and 4 are both very appealing; but I am leaning towards Option 4 (hence my current vote).

Science is good, I love it. Yet we currently are covering enough of that with PODC, I believe.

RandomX will definitely provide us with a lot of exposure at this stage. Monero network hash rate soared from 800 MH/s to 1.2 GH/s in a month - this corresponds to several hundred thousand cpus running RandomX, even if some of them are latest Ryzen 9s. In most parts of the world, a typical 5-year-old cpu is barely breaking even at current network hashrate. Those miners would simply jump over a side benefit such as merged mining of BBP, once they are made aware.

If I am right in the sentence above, then we would see a huge spike in difficulty of BBP POW - old timers or hobby miners may kiss their BBP rewards good bye. This needs to be prevented, imho.

Another concern I have is the flippers: many of those RandomX miners that start mining BBP will prefer to liquidate BBP first, to cover some of their expenses. Remember when we could earn Obyte, Neumannium and a couple others on the side last year with PODC? I doubt anyone kept, say, their Neumanniums

I believe this possibility has to be taken into account (better ready than sorry, right?). The only precaution I can think of is incentivising hodling of BBP (or soft-penalising of liquidation). Coin*age requirement as in the ABN times, or proportional PODC RAC requirement for POW rewards, or even fiat donations to charity required for POW rewards, you name it. People that have to pay up front for a reward will be less likely to sell it at any cost (which kills the market). 

 

47

Archived Proposals / Re: PODC TEAM REQUIREMENTS

« on: December 07, 2019, 03:24:16 PM »

I agree completely in the sense that if we want to attract unlimited new users, we should allow the possibility of any team (not just GRC), if they stake the collateral.

I'm definitely open as I want the community to get what they want out of BBP.

So, I extended the deadline 7 more days.

I feel that in order to achieve this we need more votes; so my best advice is to try to drum up more votes if you would like to see this change.

I also agree with Sun's remark - changed my vote to allow members of any team with ^1.6 stake. 

48

TestNet Discussion Archive / Re: TestNet - PODC 2.0 (Proof of Distributed Computing)

« on: November 28, 2019, 12:15:43 PM »

Sure, and I will reply asap to the message btw.

On appearing in the leaderboard, the researcher will appear about 5 blocks after a PODC transmission is made; but now the way it works is, if you type exec rac, note how it says 18757 is the next wcg transmission (Fixed), add 205 to that, thats when the wallet sends out the PODC transmission automatically.  But, you will have to see if exec rac shows that you have the coin*age. 

So same issue, if you manually type 'sendgscc wcg' now, the coin age will not be sufficient (until you let it grow a little more).  You know we should also tell the user that (duh) upon manually completing that command.  EDIT:  Ok, the next version will actually give you a reply if you don't have enough coin-age, with a warning, explaining that the RAC may be reduced resulting in a lower reward. 

EDIT: But btw, when a user stakes insufficient collateral, we do reverse engineer it down to the amount staked, and lower the leaderboard RAC, so if you want to try now, you can then look at the leaderboard and see a reduced RAC.

OK, sent a GSC transmission. Required coin-age was 324.976, and I had 200.833. Let's see how it rolls out.

49

TestNet Discussion Archive / Re: TestNet - PODC 2.0 (Proof of Distributed Computing)

« on: November 28, 2019, 10:14:39 AM »

Thanks for the funds, Rob ! Otherwise I would have to mine for a couple of days while testing the minimum coinage requirements for a reward 

Do I have to send a manual PODCupdate to show up in the leaderboard?

50

TestNet Discussion Archive / Re: TestNet - PODC 2.0 (Proof of Distributed Computing)

« on: November 28, 2019, 07:58:29 AM »

I see one more change that is to be in the next version is increasing the GRC exponent requirement:
https://forum.biblepay.org/index.php?topic=476.new#new

Do we have any volunteer that wants to switch over to team Gridcoin, so we can test the coin-age-requirement is correct in the next version?

I am in with a Gridcoin account. Exponent seems to be working. Here is the output of exec rac:

"Command": "rac",
  "cpid": "82e63a509a38e2201f08c819457df57f",
  "CPK": "ybf862FujX5RZ2G3ENTzNmywA58xkHjL3m",
  "wcg_teamid": 30513,
  "next_podc_gsc_transmission": 18757,
  "team_name": "Gridcoin",
  "researcher_nickname": "amygdala",
  "total_wcg_boinc_credit": 57690.09,
  "total_wcg_points": 403830.63,
  "external_purse_total_coin_age": 0,
  "coin_age_percent_required": 0,
  "NOTE!": "Coins must have a maturity of at least 5 confirms for your coin*age to count.  (See current depth in coin control).",
  "coin_age_required": 286924.2504116587,
  "wcg_id": 1027347,
  "rac": 2576.941353

51

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).

52

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

53

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.

54

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.

55

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.

56

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

57

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?

58

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).

59

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   

60

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