Bible Pay

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Rob Andrews

Pages: 1 ... 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 [174] 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 ... 277
2596
When or how Sanctuarie gets Enabled? I made it few days ago, but still I hopw to start is every couple of hours and then it recive PRE Enabled status.

From what I started seeing a couple days ago, I think everything has been purring like a kitten now (knock on wood, praise Jesus).

I honestly believe that you are potentially having a problem related to being on a prior versions fork.
Because ever since I reindexed at block 10,500 I have not had one single problem with my 3 sancs (IE they went to enabled and never died again), I dont have to restart them.

Could you please try deleting your mncache.dat, banlist.dat, mnp*.* and gov*.dat, and resyncing from 0, (delete evodb -r and chainstate and blocks), then after the 'mnsync status' shows 999, then do a start on the sanc, and let me know if it ever goes from ENABLED back to anything else (as I highly do want to know feedback in this area, because we are replacing watchman-on-the-wall and I feel we can add value to the blockchain by having our own brand in this area, this way we can be valuable).

Thanks...


2597
Archived Proposals / Re: Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« on: April 07, 2019, 08:57:48 AM »
No ... This is not "Fairer", as someone who is happy with any of the options could vote 3 times, and have their vote counted 3x.


What I worry this seems like an attempt to consolidate power,  I currently have more than one MN,  and one of the options would exclude me outright . 

I do see value in less for hosting fees, but I do not agree we should be excluding more folks from the voting process.

A more "Fair" way to approach that would be to start with a single poll, "Should we raise the cost of a sanctuary"  get a yes/no on that before trying to figure out which level to raise it to.

Each individual poll does have the individual ability to win or lose though, and everyone with sanc voting rights can vote on an individual poll currently.
So I wouldnt go as far as saying its "unfair", I would say, this needs to be a strategic decision certainly.

I'm for instance holding back and watching the public opinion on this as I dont want to weigh in and hurt the small guys by forcefully voting for the highest for example.  If people seem to gravitate towards the 4.5 then Ill probably weigh in on that.

I do want to exclaim loudly, that I am very very merciful and compassionate for the small investor!  I am not against voting for a reduction in 18 months if our price is 20* higher then.  At the same time, I obviously am against constant changes!  --  Im just saying that I wouldnt want BiblePay to cost $100,000 per sanctuary like Stratis for instance :).

As far as consolidation of power, we are cheap right now, I think its a fair argument to say that a $1,200 slice of BiblePay - will still give One slice of voting power.  Its not true to say that I for example am becoming more powerful.  The remainder of a fractional straggling sanc is what is at stake - and yes a fractional sanc share is what we would be expecting that person to buy on the open market.   (I made my transparent case that we would also on the flip side not really want to let a whale dump extra bbp because they cant manage the day to day activities of running their sancs.  I fit in that category - I  prioritize release punchlist points every day over rebooting sancs in new start required state).








2598
Archived Proposals / Re: Side By Side Women of Uganda
« on: April 07, 2019, 07:55:20 AM »
I was curious what happened with this, glad we got it worked out.

I see we have 9 voting against it already from our non-compassionate side.

Guys, I obviously realize we will ultimately need to cut our sponsorships in half across the board, but that is if our decline continues, and that occurs in 3 more months.  I entered this proposal based on being a good Samaritan - and because as of today we can help these kids.


2599
We still need help entering more proposals, please enter some.

Next superblock @ 17220.

Still no proposals, I've entered about 5, could use more.  Also, I need help voting on these!  Please go to proposals in the QT wallet and vote on them also, thanks.

2600
We still need help entering more proposals, please enter some.

Next superblock @ 17220.


2601
So I thought of another feature we could use in testnet: the ability to see total outbound tithes, outbound coin-age, and inbound-revenue over a superblock period.  And make exec prominence show your user information as a total (so you dont have to look through the list).

Any other requests in that vein?

This would theoretically show the user the summary that they need per day and reveal the ROI and totals that they used for the staking component.


2602
Archived Proposals / Re: Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« on: April 06, 2019, 10:58:23 AM »
Ill give it a couple more days and if all 3 look unpopular Ill put a smaller one in also  - so please keep an eye out for a smaller option.

All the current negatives might be Slovakia and Noko.


2603
Archived Proposals / Side By Side Women of Uganda
« on: April 06, 2019, 10:34:22 AM »
First a little history.
We sponsored 10 orphans through BLOOM up til Dec 31, 2018.

During the beginning of the year we technically could not afford to continue to sponsor the full quantity, so we intended to scale back to at least 5 or lower this year.

We received a message from Sarah at Side by Side (this is Blooms vendor) that 'payment has been cancelled' as of 2019 (another words the children are at risk of being dropped from the boarding school) and she asked if we could do anything directly (IE would we like to step in and sponsor any of these children).

I asked which 4 would need us the most?  She listed:
Favor   
https://biblepaysponsorkids.tumblr.com/post/171309417994
Praise   
https://biblepaysponsorkids.tumblr.com/post/171309472084
Isaac   
 https://biblepaysponsorkids.tumblr.com/post/171309538169
Musigale   
https://biblepaysponsorkids.tumblr.com/post/171309583169

TheSnat and I started to train her on how to liquidate crypto, but she has not successfully finished that course (she is working with him now).

In the mean time I volunteered to step in and pay for 90 days, one-time to continue the children so that they do not have to leave the boarding school.

Note that this particular arrangement is $80 per child per month because they receive not only the normal meals and school, but also boarding.


I am requesting $320 * 3 months = $960.00 or  3,720,930bbp.


Receipt - sending wire now:
http://pool.biblepay.org/san/Expenses/sidebyside.pdf



2604
Archived Proposals / Re: Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« on: April 06, 2019, 09:46:32 AM »
If the primary reason is the current price of  BBP,   I don't agree with this..

Wouldn't the better focus instead be how to make BBP more valuable,  thereby raising the cost for a MN?

The problem is we only have a few whales here so far, so I think the whales will agree that they dont need 50 sancs per whale, and I dont think it would be a good idea to tell the whales to sell their bbp now (as then there is no reward incentive for them).

So for right now, I think the idea makes sense.

Of course we should work on making biblepay valuable anyway.


2605
Good job so far. I have a question:

1/3 sancs that I have reports a different health output:
Code: [Select]
"votes": 1,
  "required_votes": 3,
  "last_superblock": 14985,
  "next_superblock": 15190,
  "next_superblock_triggered": true,
  "Healthy": true,
  "GSC_Voted_In": [b]false[/b]
mastenode outputs
{
  "626a61b0dfa151374bb42f1c432853efacb1742292318f9389c121f51b3310e4": "1"
}

-------------------------
2/3 report this:
  "votes": 5,
  "required_votes": 3,
  "last_superblock": 14985,
  "next_superblock": 15190,
  "next_superblock_triggered": true,
  "Healthy": true,
  "GSC_Voted_In": true
Is that normal behaviour?



Thanks for the testing, so let me explain a little more about health, this is a relatively long explanation :) but Ill try to make it succinct.

So the fact that we see "1" positive vote on your first node, the answer from a high level is, Its "probably OK", but we should do a little more investigation to try to find out whats going on.

On a side note, the underlying goverance-obj hash, that is the native Dash hash for the object, but the PAM hash is the hash of the payments and addresses in the GSC contract. 

The node will be able to recover by the time the superblock hits using various methods, it will attempt to sync (mnsync status, govobjs) first, then it will attempt to unpack the gsc contract manually (this is since it actually runs the same code as the server side), and finally before it fails it will still follow normal superblock rules (IE mark the block as good if its a node thats out of sync), but its still worth going a little further with this one, to see if we have any gov-obj data sync errors.

So lets try to isolate the missing govobj hash.
If you run 'exec health' you will see the height is 15805 (for the next superblock).
Then go to a healthy node and type 'gobject listwild all triggers 15805' and you should see one or more contract triggers (preferably one).
Then copy the governance-object hash (this is the very first hash on the page) to notepad.
Then cat.debug.log | grep hash  in your node that only has one vote.  And see if an error occurred in syncing that hash (it might say something like Exception: failed to sync governance-object nnnnnn) but not exactly this wording.

If we can find that exception, then I can track down why that node did not fully sync.  Also let us know if it recovered.
And also if 'mnsync status' shows that the node is out of sync (IE the row that reads 'IsSynced').  If that failed, the node didn't get all of its gobjects.

Another possibility is being on testnet, we have 4 enabled sancs, and 4 down, it could be that node is still trying to iterate through to the enabled nodes.

I think during testing if we are still having gobject sync problems they will most likely reveal themselves as a lot of data will be passing back and forth.

Right now all 4 of mine are in sync, with exec health true and 4 votes, but I will check my logs to see if any sync errors have been flying around through the night.

(I know we need to shorten the delete duration of gobjects in the next release, this will cut some of this spam and chattiness down also).










2606
Archived Proposals / Re: Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« on: April 06, 2019, 06:07:27 AM »
I hope this rule will take effect for new sancs in the future,the old sancs are not affected.

Everyone with an existing sanc would need to take it down, upgrade it to a DIP3 sanc (deterministic sanc) with 3 keys, change the lockup req, and bring it back online at a certain hard-fork deadline height.
 
(We will all need to do this first part anyway, for Evo).



2607
Archived Proposals / Re: Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« on: April 06, 2019, 06:06:21 AM »
Maybe we could have the so-called tiered masternodes? For example, three tiers: 1.5m, 3m and 6m. We could even name other tiers something like "shrines" etc.

So if someone has more masternodes, they can consolidate them. And if someone has one masternode, they can stay on the lowest tier undisturbed.

Unfortunately, the code lockup value is hardcoded in 75 areas (in BiblePay we made it a constant so its cleaner).

But yes, the only way to do that is to make variable payments per dynamic lockup, but we cant make variable with 7 minute blocks (it would require multiple outputs per coinbase, and that requires the voting system to be changed  etc, etc).

So in summary, its just not possible in this particular version of Evo (with our block spacing and recipient count and ABN feature).




2608
So far, its purring like a kitten...

It looks like we smashed the bug.


2609
Archived Proposals / Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« on: April 05, 2019, 08:33:46 PM »
Since BiblePay is moving to Evolution in June, we have the opportunity to potentially change the Sanctuary lockup requirements from 1,550,001 to another figure.

I think this would be a good time to discuss potentially changing this lockup requirement higher in order to :
- Give our investors more ROI per Sanc
- Decrease Hosting Costs
- Increase reliability per Sanc (because user may afford a higher quality host and have more time to monitor each sanc)

The obvious downside to this is a higher barrier of entry cost for the small investor.
But, with our recent downturn in price bringing a sanctuary investment to only $400, I think this is a feasible idea.

For me as an investor, I would personally lean towards consolidating so I can spend less on hosting fees.
Analyzing the effect of wasted hosting:

We currently have about 500 sancs.
Our sanc owners are spending a very high percentage of the revenue on hosting (If hosting is $10 per month, with $20 of revenue that is 50% spent on hosting).

I believe reducing the sanc count by half will not hurt biblepay (as 250 nodes are still more than enough to service our network), and, it could be argued that 250 high quality sancs are better than 500 low quality sancs (as with low quality instant sends could get lost).

Additionally over the next 5 years, even if we move to 125 sancs, our sanc count will again increase (due to more coins being emitted and a lockup ratio average of approx 50% coins become locked into sancs).

I propose that we enter 3 sanctuary proposals floating this idea with different size lockups:
1) 3 million lockup
2) 4.5 million lockup
3) 7 million lockup

If all 3 are voted down we keep 1.55 MM.




2610
TestNet Discussion Archive / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving
« on: April 05, 2019, 08:23:49 PM »
the above message should have read:
* is on a very old laptop which crashes every now and then


Is there anyway to edit a message?
Sorry, trying to remember where we were with this, edit which message?


Pages: 1 ... 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 [174] 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 ... 277