Messages

2281

TestNet Discussion Archive / Re: TestNet - BiblePay-Evolution & GSCs (Generic Smart Contracts)

« on: September 17, 2019, 04:17:49 PM »

Dear Rob,

Based on published data Ref: http://wiki.biblepay.org/Emission_Schedule
And the approx current output, I have calculated the approx BBP allocation based on current QT, can you please confirm? Thank you.

Planned emission   

                %                BBP
Total monthly    51,914,467.00
Per day                  1,730,482.23
Curr QT    0.6        1,038,289.34

Sanc          0.25         259,572.34
PoBHv2    0.25         259,572.34
SB(?)         0.10         103,828.93
GSC           0.40          415,315.74

GSC breakdown:
POG            0.475     197,274.97
POOM        0.475     197,274.97
HEALING    0.050      20,765.79

Hi Oncoapop,

You almost have it perfectly right. 

Total monthly    51,914,467.00
Per day                  1,730,482.23
Curr QT    0.6        1,038,289.34

This is right, since we have 1.7MM per day emissions in 2019, with a QT level of 60%, that means we are emitting 692,193 per day (roughly) right now, yes.

On the block distribution, we recently had this change:
https://forum.biblepay.org/index.php?topic=435.0

Changing it to :

20% - Charity and Governance (this is our 10% to orphan-charity + 10% to IT/PR/P2P/etc)
25% - GSC (this is for POG + Healing + Poom)
35% - Sanctuary budget  (This is currently 25% as you stated above but changes to 35% on our next mandatory upgrade)
20% - POBH/Security (This is for POBH Heat mining)


On the GSC breakdown:
Yes, 47.5% for POG, POOM=47.5%, and healing .05%, yes exactly.

So this means on a given day:

Total Gross emissions before QT = 1.7MM, minus 60% QT equals a gross daily emission of 692,193. 
Out of this (692,193 * 35%) 242,267 would go to the sanctuary in the future.

On the GSC, we actually will escrow 45% per block in advance - to cover the monthly and daily GSC budget - but pay out about 330K per day (total) for GSC - this is because the single monthly payment is only once but 330K is paid daily.  The 330K daily plus the monthly superblock amount equals the 45% per block escrow amount.

The 20% POBH would be a standard calculation (692,193 * .20 = 138,438) per day.

2282

Archived Proposals / Remove Port Restriction on Hosted Sanctuaries

« on: September 15, 2019, 01:31:18 PM »

So this idea is spearheaded by Apollon and I also have heard of this idea from TheSnat before.

The idea is to remove the port restriction on sactuaries, and allow the sanc to be hosted from any port number.

Technically, we know this will work because XAP and BlockLogic (BLTG) are doing it already.

(The port restriction is this:  Dash must run on port 9999 only and if a user hosts from other than 9999, the Masternode will be rejected from the network.  For BiblePay they must run on port 40000).

Dash put the port restriction in to be more corporate friendly for Network Admins - IE - they wanted network admins to know that if port 9999 is to be open, its specifically for Dash traffic.

Initially I was slightly against the idea, when I imagined we would have one sanc per user, I figured each of us could afford the $5 hosting fee per month.

However, as we evolved I have seen another side to this situation:  During downward price spirals some of our users who are cost concious would like to run more than one sanc on a hosted VPS.  From my perspective, I changed my mind to neutral when I experienced a very bad service level with one of my last sanc hosts (not vultr), and I had to hurry and switch to Apollon (thank God they were available at the time).  What Im alluding to is, if removing the port restriction would have given me for example a path to create more instances per vultr node for example, it might have been a life saver.  (I dont mean financially for me, I mean for the sake of the GSC contracts being voted on by my nodes).

In light of this I've become neutral.  I obviously want high performance per node.

Please provide any opinions on this idea, if this will be a terrible move for some reason.

As far as Apollons perspective, they are in business to make money.  I realize our partners need to be healthy and make a profit, and if we lose our partners, we lose our ability to host sancs.  Lets think of this from all angles.

Possible Positive reason:
If less BBP is spent on hosting less is liquidated on the exchange for hosting fees to be paid

Possible Negative reason:
Will we look weak and fragile if we allow this?

2283

TestNet Discussion Archive / Re: TestNet - BiblePay-Evolution & GSCs (Generic Smart Contracts)

« on: September 15, 2019, 01:18:29 PM »

Does anyone understand this problem?

I believe we have determined your coin-age was the problem via PM but I cant quite remember  --   Has this been resolved now?

I think you just need more BBP in your wallet .

2284

TestNet Discussion Archive / Re: TestNet - BiblePay-Evolution & GSCs (Generic Smart Contracts)

« on: September 15, 2019, 01:15:44 PM »

Thank you. Initially, the testnet sancs were enabled even when the entire VPS was off for extended periods of time; now when they temporarily drop connection, all of the sancs appear to be banned and none appear to gave recovered without intervention.

 sanc count
{
  "total": 6,
  "enabled": 0
}

Hi Oncoapop,

I see people have been replying to this thread; sorry, I was relying on an email notification and I didnt get one this time.

Anyhoo - Ill start with POSE.  The reason you were not banned for the first 99% of releases (Except, our last 3 releases!), is because, this branch, the dash .14 deterministic branch - has a major change compared to our Prod (.13) branch.  This branch POSE bans based on LLMQ quorum enforcement.

So the partial answer is - up til the last 3 releases - we did not have that spork enabled.  So your sancs were free to do anything they wanted (be off, anything).  The prod branch (.13) works a different way - those guys are banned based on Masternode Pings.

Moving on to the last two releases - at the point when we enabled LLMQs:  We now need 3 sanctuaries Keeping track of the network quorums (these are 60 minute heartbeats written into mined blocks).  They appear to be very strict.  But we also have had a network in tatters in testnet.  Im half tempted to change the block time back to 7 mins and have us start over!  Since we generated 200,000 empty blocks LOL.

Ill get back on and address some of these other things asap.  Im trying to finish some things up with BMS so we can merge that into a testnet thread also.


Ill restart my sancs and check the chain asap, also.

2285

TestNet Discussion Archive / Re: TestNet - BiblePay-Evolution & GSCs (Generic Smart Contracts)

« on: September 05, 2019, 09:13:39 AM »

I switched off mine in the Vultr VPS. I made a snapshot so maybe I can take it back again.

Apart from that, what else do you need from me to test?

We need to have a reliable network of sanctuaries online to test LLMQs and Chainlocks. 

2286

TestNet Discussion Archive / Re: TestNet - BiblePay-Evolution & GSCs (Generic Smart Contracts)

« on: September 05, 2019, 09:10:14 AM »

I have the following machines on testnet but all my sancs have been pose banned so i need to reactivate them but this back-to-school week is a bit busy for me.

http://oncoapop.sdf.org/biblepaytest/testnet_chainstate.shtml

Thanks guys!

Yeah, one of my 3 was pose banned too.  I have been deliberately waiting to see if it revives by itself.

As the Dash-Evo code hints at an automatic revival process; but - when I read about people who were POSE banned, they generally recreate their nodes.  But that doesnt make too much sense to me, because there is a strict control on not being able to re-use the same IP.

I have one well known working method to undo a POSE ban - but its like using a cannon - you can spend the output and recreate the sanc using upgradesanc - and that is allowed - because the network sees it as spent and undoes the lock on it first - and allows recreation.

Before I recreate my third sanc, let me do some more expirimentation.

2287

TestNet Discussion Archive / Re: TestNet - BiblePay-Evolution & GSCs (Generic Smart Contracts)

« on: September 03, 2019, 04:21:38 PM »

Let me know when our sancs have upgraded, because I would like to set the spork to slow the testnet chain down to keep the testnet chain from generating thousands of empty one minute blocks (causing longer sync times in the future).

I believe Im the only 2 sancs left; MIP & Oncoapop are you guys still participating?

Jaap said he would, but we havent heard back from him after that.  I havent seen Togo here either despite coming back on the payroll.

2288

TestNet Discussion Archive / Re: TestNet - BiblePay-Evolution & GSCs (Generic Smart Contracts)

« on: September 03, 2019, 04:07:18 PM »

Let me know when our sancs have upgraded, because I would like to set the spork to slow the testnet chain down to keep the testnet chain from generating thousands of empty one minute blocks (causing longer sync times in the future).

2289

TestNet Discussion Archive / Re: TestNet - BiblePay-Evolution & GSCs (Generic Smart Contracts)

« on: September 03, 2019, 03:01:25 PM »

1.4.6.2 - Mandatory Upgrade for TestNet

- Merge in Prod changes up to 1.4.4.6
- Merge in Reindex fix (MIP)
- Add feature to slow mining of empty blocks in TestNet only
- Add feature to upload nested folder into BIPFS
- Add transparent background image for windows toolbar

2290

Archived Proposals / Re: Listing in MN hosting SatoshiSolutions

« on: August 28, 2019, 12:52:21 PM »

I requested a listing in SatoshiSolutions, and advanced a $250 fee myself, by selling 540000 BBP from my sanc.

Regarding the listing itself, it seems that we caught them in the middle of a merger/swap with other project, and to add up, in the middle of a migration to an improved infrastructure for MN hosting.

I told them I understand the circumstances but if they can provide a deadline for the listing, this will give more visibility to the community.

I have also spent a few hours contacting them to help compile the new wallet, but I will leave the proposal as it is to recover the advanced fee.

540000 BBP

Thank you very much

I like it and will vote yes.

When do they expect to make us go-live so we can create one?

Thanks!

2291

Archived Proposals / Re: FUBT Exchange

« on: August 28, 2019, 11:34:27 AM »

I have contacted Nick at FUBT and thanked him for his time he spent with us and spent evaluating BBP, and I mentioned that after evaluating this we have decided to wait and pass on this opportunity for now.

At this time, I am withdrawing my offer to fund this opportunity with my personal funds. 

2292

Archived Proposals / Re: FUBT Exchange

« on: August 26, 2019, 09:00:26 AM »

Coingecko takes in consideration ration between 24hours volume and number of site visits (they take it from SimilarWeb). They count this ration for 10 bitwise exchanges (Binance, Bitfinex, Kraken, Bitstamp, Coinbase, Bitflyer, Gemini, itBit, Bittrex, Poloniex) from this they make median and median using as a benchmark. Based on this benchmark they normalize volumes down or up for rest exchanges (in detail here https://blog.coingecko.com/trust-score/ ). I see this as a good weapon against fake volumes. From our two exchanges TOKOK is going to look much more better choice.

Ok, thats a much better explanation for their normalizing system than I thought they were doing (I thought they were monitoring some type of trading filters and guessing if it was bot activity , ok good to know.

Yes, Tokok looks a lot better again, now we need to know is there anything negative about Tokok.

1 mil is not shabby, and it might be bigger if the similarweb is too strict on the whale activity at tokok. (Im remaining positive that they are not falsifying all the volume).

2293

Archived Proposals / Re: FUBT Exchange

« on: August 26, 2019, 08:23:43 AM »

I see we have a quite new topic in forum.biblepay.org regarding new exchange listing. We have two choices, first one FUBT exchange and second one TOKOK exchange. I tried to make an account and look at them. I was a little bit dissapointed when I tried to make an account on FUBT exchange. Directly in register form I need to put in confirmation code sent via short message or via email. Unfortunatelly short message even email confirmation have not worked in my case. I used Slovak phone number and @gmail.com email. I haven't receive anything. I tried it from France IP, email confirmation worked but I receive email in Chinese. Translated via google translator. After registration I tried to log in, again I needed to confirm log in by code but I havent receive anything. Ok I closed this issue with statement that FUBT is not very user friendly in Europe. Ill try it maybe later ones again.
On the other hand I had no problem with TOKOK exchange, fast registration, everything worked just fine. Exchange platform looks fast enough even in Europe and looks user friendly.

Regarding coingecko parameters both of them are looking very good on the first look. On the second look both of the exchanges has much more lower daily Normalized Volume as Daily Volume. In my opinion this means they have many trading robots and their volumes are penalised and Normalized volume decreased. This is not good sign. So real volume we can say FUBT about 400k daily and TOKOK 1mil daily normalized volume. In comparisn with Southxchange has max 100k daily.
So when I compared daily volumes TOKOK looks better and according to information from Rob's post on forum.biblepay.org listing fee is cheaper. It means 2 BTC for Exchange with 1mil daily volume.

When you take a look on trading statistics it looks than biggest percentage of trades are in trading pairs with USDT. What do you think about that? I dont know if we have possibility maybe list BBP/USDT trading pair. It looks this should be good move?

According to my first comparism I will vote for TOKOK exchange.

I too saw the volume seem to decline on Gecko.  What we really dont know, IE we are guessing at, is what flags CoinGeckos normalized volume algorithm to decrease the 400 million trading volume down to 1 mil for example.  I wish I knew. 

I am starting to agree with your perspective on Tokok.  For one we cant really afford much.  If we forgo the PR we may end up with more volume at Tokok.  We have to be careful because this exchange decision will keep us out of new exchanges for a year if we are wrong.  If we are right, it will pay for itself in a short period of time.

Im going to try to go to another person at FUBT and demand answers now.

Also, we should analyze volume during the week and see if the reduction in volume was due to the weekend.  What Im pointing out is I remember gecko showing 400MM daily gross vol and 1 mil net for a few days then it appeared to drop drastically down below 200MM gross and only 200K net for the last few days - almost like FUBT is going *out of business*.

We certainly don't need that problem after all we've been through, we need a winner.

- Regarding the UI comparison between the two:  I agree with you - even in the US.  I selected English on both platforms.  The main problem I had with FUBT is I had to fill the KYC out (and the system never did change from China for the country even though I selected US- their customer service said I need to manually contact them to fix it). 

In Tokok, I had no problem reading the pages as a US citizen, OR trading as a us citizen without a KYC (since they are in the virgin islands).  (I traded GIN successfully on TOKOK).

I asked Tokok, is this the BEST deal you can give us - they said Yes, 2btc is the very minimum (last night).   

2294

Archived Proposals / Re: Aug 2019 - Block reward breakdown adjustment

« on: August 25, 2019, 12:38:19 PM »

I want the GSC payments to be large enough to incentive people to go that route. Of course, as a Sanctuary-owner, I would be nice to have some direct rewards, but I think it's also important for our survival to grow long-term. GSC seems to be a very pleasant way to grow, since it's helping others in the process, and - in my view - has the potential to onboard a lot of new people. I don't really know enough of the variables involved to make a good decision at this point in time, to I'm leaning to abstain my vote for now...

I agree with you Jaap that GSC is our nicest method for new user rewards (other than heat mining).

The net effect of MIPs proposal has changed GSC from 30% to 25% of our daily rewards, so it was not a huge blow to it.  You can always post a counter argument here for MIP to tweak his final assessment before we vote (although we vote soon!).

One thing Sun has brought up recently is how disgruntled small fish are competing with the whales in the POG campaign.  So I think if you agree with this proposal % change as is, probably the biggest impact you can make is help design an idea that would limit how much whales can take from POG, and allow more to flow to the small fish.  But it has to be done in a secure way, where it cannot be hacked by outsiders who try to game the system.  Right now only true coin-age that is not invested in sancs that has a tithe attached can earn a reward.  So its a big improvement over many many schemes, but still the whales get the biggest rewards.  Finding a way to reward newbies would potentially increase onboarding, but we are all at a loss as to how to improve that.

2295

Archived Proposals / Re: FUBT Exchange

« on: August 25, 2019, 12:25:05 PM »

I'm having some reservations. I like the promotion-deal and the fact that it's non-English. Do they have a Chinese equivalent of Twitter or something where you can see interaction between them and the persons that use the platform?

Most of our volume is on southXchange. Coinexchange.io volume is very low, although it's ranked higher on coingecko than FUBT, so I don't know if adding another exchange will increase volume perse. But as I said, it's a non-English exchange, so it might help.

My reservations are mostly because it's hard for me to determine if they are actually as high-volume as they claim.

Thanks Jaap.

I'll add a few more points and see if they resonate with others as we near the time where we need to decide what we vote on.

I feel the promotional component of the deal "may" be valuable (I'm just a little more skeptical of PR now that we have been in business for 2+ years and our airdrop campaigns were pretty weak, and our efforts to bring people through ads were kind of weak, and dont get me wrong, Im very happy we did everything we did) just saying I feel the 1 bitcoin component of the deal is probably going to be lateral (if that).  IE maybe we see 100 new users over 90 days. 

The biggest pro I feel comes from Nick is his point about the 2 million registered Chinese traders.  Some of them are whales.  They buy/sell 10 million in BTC per day.  What I want to see is a few of those whales start interacting with BBP.  Impho, I think this is where the value is in the plan (penetrating the Asian crypto trading community).

I asked Nick candidly, do they think they will be dedicated and stay in this business.  Nick said, they are one of the few Chinese exchanges who conformed to the "94 regulation".  This is something where KYCs are required and they passed the strict audits of the Chinese Govt (they are allowed to operate in China and I believe also in Hong Kong).  He said they are in for the long run and indeed plan to improve the exchange and grow.  He wants to aim for being on par with Binance - although I guess any exchange will shoot for that.

EDIT:  I just emailed Nick to see if we can get insight on volume.
One thing that makes me nervous is the coingecko declining volume I see as of today compared to last week.


On the twitter:  I think if you click on CoinGecko, see if the twitter link comes up there.


We need to check this volume out in depth.

Also, anythink on Tokok anyone?