All,
We have 329 orphans sitting at risk currently with a questionable future. I not only want to avoid attrition, I want to see growth!
So heres an idea. I really think we need to consider removing all the roadblocks inside Biblepay (IE Opening the Floodgates) for cancer mining. We can consider doing this by: Removing the Boinc team requirement (being the first cryptocurrency to not require a team for boinc), and making it easier to heat-mine. (IE doing away with the last 4 block rule). (We can leave in the signed by CPID rule as a lateral move preserving heat-mining security).
I feel with this change, we can test the theory that more miners = more adoption = higher price = more monthly orphan sponsorships.
Also, as Noxpost suggested, I dont see why we cant write our own boincstats report (as we will still have records of our Biblepay participating CPIDs, RAC, TotalRAC etc). So we really only lose the "BiblePay BOINC Team" statistics in boincstats, but instead we have our own stats page. Maybe that internal stats website is something T-Mike would like to take on for us?
So, as you can see I'm pretty zealous for success here, and want us to make a comeback. Therefore I believe its in our best interests to vote on this change.
Proposed Changes:
- Remove Boinc Team Requirement for users participating in BiblePay PODC (this compensates users for Rosetta or World Community Grid on ANY team)
- Refactor Heat Mining Block acceptor to help minimize the possibility of forks
- Still require signed cpid per block, and CPID must not be within 3 solved blocks
- Remove the rule requiring CPID to be in the last superblock
- Work with a team member to help create our own stats report for a website and/or the pool
- Leave in UTXO requirement for Boinc Miners
Desired Outcome:
- A new boinc user who is crunching for XYZ discovers they can be compensated for Rosetta cancer mining through Biblepay.
The new user loads our wallet, syncs, and associates their XYZ cpid with our wallet.
(The new user still must have a required balance shown in exec totalrac to PODC mine).
- The user is able to heat mine with the signed cpid immediately, as long as the CPID has RAC > 100.
This removes most of the strange pool errors in pool.biblepay.org and purepool.
One notion is that in general, I assume BOINC users to have enough disposable income to afford expensive computers for volunteer computing, therefore I come to the conclusion they may become biblepay investors through this process.
And, to counter the theory that we are "giving away free money", consider the fact that the ones who do not become investors will sell off the coins cheap on the market and make us more rare. So imo, this is an economic decision worth considering.
If the idea is a success, all credit to Jesus.
While the unified goal is to attract more users, the PoDC is too drastic. Could the proposal be broken up into smaller parts? At least one for PoDC and one for PoBH?
> - A new boinc user who is crunching for XYZ discovers they can be compensated for Rosetta cancer mining through Biblepay.
Too drastic of a change, I do not support. Feels desperate. Not confident it will have the desired result. For example, ByteBall is rewarding for WCG crunching. I receive ByteBalls but don't participate in the community much. Sure, I've written a few comments here and there about double dipping. I emphasize poor children ("orphans") being helped with BBP, but the conversation will change to how you can double dip with BBP.
Aren't there other strategies to use before making such a change? Increase advertising, marketing, and Public Relations effort? Erode the compassion.com cushion? Reduce/remove sponsorship to other charities? Reduce number of children sponsored? Ask our BBP holders to research their company's charitable programs to see if they offer matching gifts and compassion.com is eligible: https://www.compassion.com/donate/matching-gifts.htm <- that could reduce BBP giving but net giving is matched. Less liquidation, higher BBP price?
Its a bear market and everyone is hurting. Have faith and patience. I believe the tide will rise for all boats.
> - ** Remove the UTXO stake requirement for magnitudes less than ONE
This seems okay.
I'd support the PoBH changes.
>:(
sunk Remove the UTXO stake requirement for magnitudes less than ONE ... yes i can make 100 new machines for free= super,i agree ;)
Quote from: thesnat21 on August 29, 2018, 04:06:02 PM
I'm on the fence about the team removal, I do see benefits (now folks could double-dip mining on gridcoin + bbp for example.. Definately would open more people to the coin)
As for the 4-block heat-mining cpid restrictions... This I have some concerns over, perhaps lower it to 2 instead?
During the monthly superblock issues we were having, heat mining was impacted drastically by allowing multiple consecutive winners.
Yes, I agree with you - to clarify, Im all for making the code fork-free, and as long as we can do this in a hard deterministic way (IE check for duplicate CPID in block-1 , Im for keeping that part in). Ill double check this asap. So to clarify, you can heat mine with a signed CPID that has RAC > 100, but does not need to be in prior superblock, but - this cpid could not have solved the prior block (pending my analysis for fork prevention).
Quote from: klondike on August 29, 2018, 04:27:16 PM
>:(
sunk Remove the UTXO stake requirement for magnitudes less than ONE ... yes i can make 100 new machines for free= super,i agree ;)
Naaaa, its not that easy to maintain 100 boinc accounts cpids. So yes, we thought of that already. Those boinc guys dont like having multiple cpids; what would be the use of having stats??
Its to prevent a boinc superuser who is not on our team yet from roaming in and taking over the superblock budget.
1MAG= 10 000 RAC=1 dedicated server= 20 new accounts= free mining w/staking
Quote from: thesnat21 on August 29, 2018, 04:36:26 PM
Fair enough. With POBH being lower (been averaging 500kh-1mh) we should retain some security.
Hmm interesting thought, I could see some folks abusing it.. If you're looking for pure profit and have a mining shed of 100 machines one time boinc account creation is no big deal.
Currently mag <1 is somewhere between 8-10k RAC
Though if we get flooded with new researchers, then it could increase drastically(but less payout per)
Just to clarify, I would not propose to do something with Low security. I feel DGW + the signed cpid + prior 2 or 3 rule is very high security. I took a look at the code, and I think we can keep our current prod rule (requiring cpid to have not solved the N-1 through N-4). The main change is to remove the rule where we require the cpid to be in a superblock with a payment; thats not only the biggest hassle for them but the biggest fork risk.
I updated the proposal to consider a RAC threshhold < 15000 to be our zero UTXO requirement (IE we moved to a rac threshhold instead of magnitude based on Capulo's suggestion).
Quote from: klondike on August 29, 2018, 04:44:48 PM
1MAG= 10 000 RAC=1 dedicated server= 20 new accounts= free mining w/staking
And 20 CPIDS and 20 BoincStats accounts to check and 20 biblepay addresses and 20 wallets, right ? Thats a lot of usernames and passwords to maintain...
Quote from: Rob A. on August 29, 2018, 04:58:03 PM
And 20 CPIDS and 20 BoincStats accounts to check and 20 biblepay addresses and 20 wallets, right ? Thats a lot of usernames and passwords to maintain...
for speculant easy :(
The biggest impact is removing Team BiblePay requirement. This change brings in more miners, but are they going to stake or sell BBP? GridCoin miners seem the most logical to register their CPID. I feel they will sell BBP & ByteBall. BBP is a Christian crypto niche: highly targeted with a loyal demographic. Others in it for distributed computing will likely not stake BBP. So, it feels like a net loss to me. You lose advertising benefit of highly ranked team on Rosetta@Home/WCG and still have liquidation issues because GridCoin miners sell their BBP.
Quote from: klondike on August 29, 2018, 04:44:48 PM
1MAG= 10 000 RAC=1 dedicated server= 20 new accounts= free mining w/staking
Your current magnitude will plummet due to influx of GridCoin miners. 10 000 RAC for 1 MAG could easily become 30 000 RAC for 1 MAG.
Email registration on Rosetta@Home and WCG is extremely easy.
If I don't have to stake, it'd be easy enough to create multiple instances with separate CPID on one machine:
* datadir to current directory
* biblepay.conf with unique port & rpcport
You can easily run 20 instances on a single machine.
I just created another instance of BBP on my machine just now.
Quote from: Rob A. on August 29, 2018, 04:58:03 PM
And 20 CPIDS and 20 BoincStats accounts to check and 20 biblepay addresses and 20 wallets, right ? Thats a lot of usernames and passwords to maintain...
Why would you need to check stats? Wouldn't PoDC payment be enough (assuming you had the same hardware for each machine). Certainly, there's some upfront configuration time, but once everything is set up, there'd be very little intervention involved. I don't think there'd be that much abuse... just saying it'd be easy to do.
but for free staking my rac will be same and my MAG will be falling when will be exists more miners ;)
Quote from: sunk818 on August 29, 2018, 05:22:50 PM
The biggest impact is removing Team BiblePay requirement. This change brings in more miners, but are they going to stake or sell BBP? GridCoin miners seem the most logical to register their CPID. I feel they will sell BBP & ByteBall. BBP is a Christian crypto niche: highly targeted with a loyal demographic. Others in it for distributed computing will likely not stake BBP. So, it feels like a net loss to me. You lose advertising benefit of highly ranked team on Rosetta@Home/WCG and still have liquidation issues because GridCoin miners sell their BBP.
Your current magnitude will plummet due to influx of GridCoin miners. 10 000 RAC for 1 MAG could easily become 30 000 RAC for 1 MAG.
Email registration on Rosetta@Home and WCG is extremely easy.
If I don't have to stake, it'd be easy enough to create multiple instances with separate CPID on one machine:
* datadir to current directory
* biblepay.conf with unique port & rpcport
You can easily run 20 instances on a single machine.
I just created another instance of BBP on my machine just now.
Why would you need to check stats? Wouldn't PoDC payment be enough (assuming you had the same hardware for each machine). Certainly, there's some upfront configuration time, but once everything is set up, there'd be very little intervention involved. I don't think there'd be that much abuse... just saying it'd be easy to do.
Im not saying thats its not possible, and Im not saying it wont be done, what Im saying is a large percentage of people who use boinc have an affinity to keep ONE CPID and like to keep their stats intact.
And time is worth money and it does cost this person time to manage multiple accounts. Especially to manage 20 biblepay controller wallets.
The RAC threshhold requirement for UTXO would still be better to have in to keep the boinc whales from jumping in and destroying the small miners rewards. If a whale wants to split the cpids, so be it, but for the most part the end user would be protected moreso with the utxo requirement than without it.
Quote from: 616westwarmoth on August 29, 2018, 11:47:39 PM
...
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.
...
Only some remark from traders point of view.
I would not be nervous from destroying the price wall. I think there are for sure traders waiting for this and it is a great opportunity for them to buy the dip and get a cheap bbp without any mining effort.
I support everything that could bring new people aboard and so I have no problem to vote for this proposal. However I have hardship how this proposal could have any significant impact. From my point of view it will have just a minor tweak, which is ok except BBP is on the brink of edge not being able to support current orphans anymore. Brief look on the order books on exchanges shows that there were less than 1BTC total on the buyers side (on all exchanges) total when I looked last time. Price around 10 sat is also not a good signal. BBP market is dry, selling 2 sanctuaries will send market below 10 sat and selling 10 sanctuaries will send market to zero.
Low demand is main problem for BBP. We need to come with something that will make BBP desirable. To answer the main question - why to hold BBP? BiblePay started when market was booming, it was relatively easy to keep the price. Now, during this bear phase, market is also flooded with new small MN projects every day (some of them are also charity focused). Maybe you say this charity is the key feature but frankly people can support orphans effectively without BBP as well and in more sound way (in terms of taxes, etc). I know that BiblePay is also working in this direction and that's good.
I really wish to see BiblePay supporting 1M orphans one day. But from investment and economical PoV BBP doesn't make any sense. Inflation (even though it's declining in time) is drastic and 10% sell-off of newly created BBP will always undermine the price, ie. also demand. And not the forget other expenses that are doing the same. I believe we need to start with more sound economical model here. Sound economy brings sound investors. In Bible, tithes are 10% of real profit, not value of 10% of newly created coins even during a loss period. I believe BBP should give 10% of profits to orphans - I mean real profits and at the same time to generate reserves for time of bear market (Joseph's approach). We need to calculate our BBP profits based on BBP/USD performance, not based no how much new BBP are generated.
Difficult thing is that BBP already supports 300 orphans although size and performance of the projects is way to small for this size of support. Now a miracle (strong philanthropist investor or strong crypto bull market) is needed to keep them supported.
I believe there are two ways. Either some miracle happens and I'm all for that or/and we must rethink our economy model to make it more sustainable (ie. spend newly generated BBP only when price grows enough and create reserves for worse times) and to bring some killer feature kicking up demand in general that would bring the project into TOP100 crypto projects. Although adjusting economy model is relatively easy tasks, to bring some excellent feature is not. On the other hand, sound economical model is valuable feature as well imho.
That's my two cents. I believe God is backing up this project and Lord Jesus will not let it fall but I also believe that economical side of the project needs to be properly adjusted and sound from broader perspective. And sorry I went little bit further from the main topic here.
"That's my two cents. I believe God is backing up this project and Lord Jesus will not let it fall but I also believe that economical side of the project needs to be properly adjusted and sound from broader perspective. And sorry I went little bit further from the main topic here."
Amen brother.
Quote from: 616westwarmoth on August 29, 2018, 11:47:39 PM
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 :)
Maybe we should consider doing one thing at a time and keeping the UTXO requirement but remove the team only for now.
I'll update the proposal to reflect removing the team only, but leaving in the UTXO.
This way as people come over from BOINC, they will have to buy BBP to mine.
Quote from: jmmc on August 30, 2018, 02:47:38 AM
Difficult thing is that BBP already supports 300 orphans although size and performance of the projects is way to small for this size of support. Now a miracle (strong philanthropist investor or strong crypto bull market) is needed to keep them supported.
Yes, I think we should try getting some philanthropists involved and that in turn will hopefully allow us to run marketing campaigns.
I suppose if we just allow double dipping it will be ok, doesn't seem like Gridcoin's stats are helping them in any way. The whole stat thing I believe is just for generating a want for higher RAC and making it into a competition so that you would want to rise in rank and beat others. Of course that's not the case for everyone and most of the smaller users probably don't even care about the stats.
"The only thing so far I dont like about the proposal is what West mentioned about 'double dipping'. I never did like that possibility. We could offer the ability to create a spork that contains a string of blacklisted team numbers (and I mean in no way any disrespect to the teams, this is precisely to prevent double dipping). Any team that is alerted on the forum of paying in another crypto for the same work could be added to the key (IE blacklisted) and that would prevent double dipping, except where other coins like BiblePay do not require a team. Another words: users who are part of a blacklisted team are not compensated in bbp." -Rob
References:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2388064.msg44919797#msg44919797
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2388064.msg44931180#msg44931180
Is a team blacklist feature part of this proposal?
and do we have a list of teams to start off on the blacklist?
This proposal feels a bit rushed and keeps changing based on discussion on BTC Talk. Its not clear what the proposal actually is for now and what changes will occur if the proposal changes. Should production proposals even be allowed to be revised? If so, revision history (like git commits) seem important so we know what changes are made and change yes/no votes accordingly.
is double dipping so bad? i think this could be one of most attractive features of our coin :)
wait......if will be blocking GRC will be blocking BYTEBALL? noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo .....
So, just to make sure. Currently this proposal is now only for removal of the team-requirement. This will also involve blacklisting some teams (e.g. Gridcoin) and giving a penalty if you are not in team BiblePay (e.g. 50%).