Bible Pay

Governance => Archived Proposals => Topic started by: Rob Andrews on March 09, 2018, 12:19:06 PM

Title: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: Rob Andrews on March 09, 2018, 12:19:06 PM
All,

Our PODC Distributed Computing superblocks pay based on a researchers magnitude, which is assessed once per day by the Sanctuary Quorum.

The magnitude ranges between 0 and 1000 per CPID (that is per researcher).

The proposal is geared towards requiring Super Users to Stake More Biblepay in order to be compensated for research.

With the thought that a mining organization, a previous bot-net, who deploys 500 machines yet only stakes 50,000 BBP will be receiving massive rewards and diluting the earnings of the small users who are less fortunate to afford that kind of big mining equipment.

In the spirit of increasing competition, we propose to require approx. 2500 BBP per magnitude, meaning that if you are a researcher with 4 computers, let us assume your magnitude is 20, then you would be required to set your utxoamount=50,000 in order to receive full research compensation.   If you only stake 25,000 on a given day, in this case your reward compensation would be multiplied * .50.

For another example, let us take a power user with 255 machines, and a magnitude of 300.  Since this user virtually controls a third of biblepay's emission level, if the 2,500 BBP UTXO requirement were in place, that CPID would need to stake 750,000 BBP per day to maintain the full reward level.

Thank you for your participation.

Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: T-Mike on March 09, 2018, 12:23:45 PM
I propose:

<  0.1 mag no staking required for people who want to support the project and not want to deal with PoDC. For the percentages above that whatever the community decides is OK with me.

In reality some people probably can't get PoDC to work even if they read the wiki.

Wasn't the staking requirement originally for keeping the botnet off?
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: Rob Andrews on March 09, 2018, 12:29:36 PM
I propose:

<  0.1 mag no staking required for people who want to support the project and not want to deal with PoDC. For the percentages above that whatever the community decides is OK with me.

In reality some people probably can't get PoDC to work even if they read the wiki.

Wasn't the staking requirement originally for keeping the botnet off?

Just to clarify, if they are an unbanked cpid, one with only RAC originating from ARM devices, there is no UTXO requirement.

Yes, this original UTXO really increases the difficulty of maintaining a botnet, as then they have to make daily stakes, so Yes, and this requirement above is just taking it a step further and adding Scale to it - the old method is - Hey lets require them to stake 50K per CPID but it has no Scale, but with this, its X per magnitude - meaning that one with 512 machines really has to stake a lot per day in order to pull in those magnitude rewards.

I sort of agree on the < .15 magnitude ordeal, for the small user who has One PC or one Laptop, maybe that would be a good thing, but that is the thing that one can circumvent by splitting CPIDs, so I am resistant to agree on that based on the prior cat & mouse games Ive seen over the years, so I error toward not putting it in - so as to keep the chain spam down and keep us nice & clean.  We do have the unbanked feature already baked in.

Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: T-Mike on March 09, 2018, 01:00:14 PM
Just to clarify, if they are an unbanked cpid, one with only RAC originating from ARM devices, there is no UTXO requirement.

Yes, this original UTXO really increases the difficulty of maintaining a botnet, as then they have to make daily stakes, so Yes, and this requirement above is just taking it a step further and adding Scale to it - the old method is - Hey lets require them to stake 50K per CPID but it has no Scale, but with this, its X per magnitude - meaning that one with 512 machines really has to stake a lot per day in order to pull in those magnitude rewards.

I sort of agree on the < .15 magnitude ordeal, for the small user who has One PC or one Laptop, maybe that would be a good thing, but that is the thing that one can circumvent by splitting CPIDs, so I am resistant to agree on that based on the prior cat & mouse games Ive seen over the years, so I error toward not putting it in - so as to keep the chain spam down and keep us nice & clean.  We do have the unbanked feature already baked in.

Yes, I just thought of that same issue so let me think about that. I think it would still be a good idea to let people mine with a regular computer.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: 616westwarmoth on March 09, 2018, 01:01:09 PM
To put some hard numbers on all this, consider the Magnitude should only be between 0 and 100 (is this capped because by math it could be 1000 but realistically won't be as that would require more than 10% of the overall team RAC).

So for someone right now to have 100 Mag, they'd need 70K RAC, I'd say in a month or two they'd need over 200K.  The average user is going to have maybe 6K RAC (based on the idea the average user is going to be running one computer part of the time, and even a top of the line PC running full time isn't going to exceed 12K except in limited circumstances).  So even if the average user had 10K RAC, then right now, they'd have a Mag of only 14..and it's going to take them nearly a month to get there.  Realistically, the average user is going to have a RAC of much less than 10K (the number 600 user overall on BOINC has about 6K).  And realistically our Team RAC in two weeks will exceed 1M.

With a 6K RAC (which I feel is a high number for someone that is coming to the coin for a motive other than profit) and 1M team RAC, they would have a Mag of 6.  So 10K/Mag for 100% UTXOWeight would be about where it is now.  I can easily see this coin being number one by end of summer at BOINC.  That would mean the above user would have a Mag of around 1, so 10K/Mag would be 1/5th the requirement now.

While on the short term, requiring a "high" UTXO/Mag seems steep, moderate to long term is will actually be far cheaper than what is currently in place and should allow for a more organic growth and less bouncing around of team members.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: jaapgvk on March 09, 2018, 01:35:07 PM
Just want to let you guys know: great thinking thusfar Rob, Mike and West.

I had the same thoughts originally as Mike, about letting newcomers with low computing power being able to mine with the bare minimum requirements (which is 1BBP in the current system, but after reading Robs 'cat and mouse' explanation, I  completely see the motivation behind the new system.

The old system also makes it difficult for newcomers to mine as much - relatively - than people who can easily afford the 50k BBP to get a 100% utxo weight, so in that light I'm for the new system.

Complex matter, but I'm reading everything to be able to make an informed decision.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: 616westwarmoth on March 09, 2018, 02:37:15 PM
Here's a different way of putting it.

T-Compustick probably did more work that the average person running BOINC on their computer in the background will do, and it was maybe going to hit 1K.  My daily computer which is running BBP and BOINC and is pretty decent for its age (Xeon X5650, 24GB RAM) has been up since Feb 8 and is peaking at about 1200 RAC.  It's probably representative of a "normal" user which I define as anyone running only one PC.  Right now that 1200 RAC would give it a Mag of 1200/700,000 of 1.7.  I firmly believe the Team RAC will exceed 1M within 10 days if not substantially sooner.  So on the very limited horizon that PC would end up with a Mag of right around 1.  If the reward structure is adjusted to 20-36-36-8 as has been said it likely will, and the "full block" right now should be worth about 18,500 BBP.  If the block timing gets to 205/day, then the daily PoDC reward would be 205*18,500*.36 = 1,365,300.  So the above "normal user" would receive "roughly" 1500 BBP / day in the very short term.  I don't see the need to retain/purchase 5K-20K coin to receive that reward as a high burden.  Or put another way, I think the harm they incur is substantially less than the benefits the coin receives by requiring the flexible staking.

Finally, most regular computers are going to grab far far less.  The number 100 team is the California States Universities (CSU) Team.  They have 10 active members, and only the founder has more than 275 RAC.  That is a typical computer user.  People with thousands of RAC are not in my mind typical.  But in the end, this is driven by the idea that me, as a vocal supporter of the coin and having 30K RAC should legitimately be expected to hold more coin to show the same level of commitment as someone with 3K RAC or 300 RAC.  For the coin, the benefits are increased price stability (coins held are not likely to be quickly sold if the price moves moderately), increased resistance to botnets and in my mind...a more equitable proposition (of whom much is given, much is required).
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: T-Mike on March 09, 2018, 04:06:16 PM
Here's a different way of putting it.

T-Compustick probably did more work that the average person running BOINC on their computer in the background will do, and it was maybe going to hit 1K.  My daily computer which is running BBP and BOINC and is pretty decent for its age (Xeon X5650, 24GB RAM) has been up since Feb 8 and is peaking at about 1200 RAC.  It's probably representative of a "normal" user which I define as anyone running only one PC.  Right now that 1200 RAC would give it a Mag of 1200/700,000 of 1.7.  I firmly believe the Team RAC will exceed 1M within 10 days if not substantially sooner.  So on the very limited horizon that PC would end up with a Mag of right around 1.  If the reward structure is adjusted to 20-36-36-8 as has been said it likely will, and the "full block" right now should be worth about 18,500 BBP.  If the block timing gets to 205/day, then the daily PoDC reward would be 205*18,500*.36 = 1,365,300.  So the above "normal user" would receive "roughly" 1500 BBP / day in the very short term.  I don't see the need to retain/purchase 5K-20K coin to receive that reward as a high burden.  Or put another way, I think the harm they incur is substantially less than the benefits the coin receives by requiring the flexible staking.

Finally, most regular computers are going to grab far far less.  The number 100 team is the California States Universities (CSU) Team.  They have 10 active members, and only the founder has more than 275 RAC.  That is a typical computer user.  People with thousands of RAC are not in my mind typical.  But in the end, this is driven by the idea that me, as a vocal supporter of the coin and having 30K RAC should legitimately be expected to hold more coin to show the same level of commitment as someone with 3K RAC or 300 RAC.  For the coin, the benefits are increased price stability (coins held are not likely to be quickly sold if the price moves moderately), increased resistance to botnets and in my mind...a more equitable proposition (of whom much is given, much is required).

I think staking is a good idea. I still would like a way for people with low hashrates to be able to mine, but I haven't though of a good way to do that yet.

So here is the thing, and it's just me for now. I have a magnitude of 160 and 20k BBP/mag is currently winning, that means I need 3.2M BBP, don't you think that's a bit much? What if we did a log curve? At 20K/mag, we are asking 20M BBP total to be staked, current supply is 452M BBP, which is 5% of the total, if that is the case, the staking is not really making a dent, then do we need to do this? I feel like the real goal here is that you are trying to even out the rewards among lower powered researchers. In the spirit of BOINC, they don't even do that.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: orbis on March 09, 2018, 04:44:35 PM
Hi,
it looks that this'll be implemented so I have a suggestion.
I supposed that the utxoamount will be calculated automatically based on mag, so you could remove utxoamount from conf.
It will be nice to have some data on wallet PODC tab or homescreen (without making getboincinfo) e.g.:
expected BBP amount for UTXO 100
expected UTXO with current staked BBP
current UTXOweight, current taskWeight
CPIDS
magnitude
RAC
next superblock
associated BBP wallet

And I agree with T-mike that give us some time to save up some BBPs :)
I understand that current magnitude is not good example, but e.g. now I have mag 13, but I really don't have 130k or even 260k BBP.
I would be happy if I had them :)
I think, that I'm semi-typical user :D I have in Rosetta mobile phones, notebook, 2 VPS for about 2,5$/m and before PODC I've ordered 24-core CPU for 1 month. It costs around 70$. It was big decision for me to buy it. I was hardly able to put those 70$ to it (but I believed in it :) ). But I'm really not able to buy >130k BBP. So try to consider this :D This is going to be good tool to stop "big brothers", but maybe small investors (or enthusiasts) too.
EDIT: IMHO 5000 BBP would be better than 10k :)
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: togoshigekata on March 09, 2018, 08:39:34 PM
Hmmm why Magnitude and not RAC?
There is only 1000 Magnitude split between all researchers
Whereas I assume RAC will mostly keep rising
Why not say 1-20 BBP per 1 RAC?
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: 616westwarmoth on March 10, 2018, 12:46:07 AM
Not to belabor the argument T-Mike but consider this.

A Mag of 160, means 16% of the daily reward will go to that user.  If the daily reward were just 1M / day (which is very sustainable for quite a while), then that is 160K coins per day.  At the 20K/Mag level, a 160 Mag user needs 3.2M Coins.  The other option is they could buy 2 MN with that, and get about...10K coins per day.   Requiring some sort of stake keeps people from jumping into and out of the coin as quickly.  That brings a stable user base.  That is good.

One minor modification I think would benefit all and solve the unbanked issue is since you need 1BBP to establish yourself on the wallet, what if we said that 1 BBP was enough for 1% UTXOWeight.  That would mean anyone with 1 BBP could get 1%, over time they could garner enough to get 100%.  The above 160 Mag RAC would end up with (if they got 100% for uptime) 1600 BBP the first day, and over a moderate time would be able to get 100% for Mag.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: T-Mike on March 10, 2018, 09:22:34 AM
Not to belabor the argument T-Mike but consider this.

A Mag of 160, means 16% of the daily reward will go to that user.  If the daily reward were just 1M / day (which is very sustainable for quite a while), then that is 160K coins per day.  At the 20K/Mag level, a 160 Mag user needs 3.2M Coins.  The other option is they could buy 2 MN with that, and get about...10K coins per day.   Requiring some sort of stake keeps people from jumping into and out of the coin as quickly.  That brings a stable user base.  That is good.

One minor modification I think would benefit all and solve the unbanked issue is since you need 1BBP to establish yourself on the wallet, what if we said that 1 BBP was enough for 1% UTXOWeight.  That would mean anyone with 1 BBP could get 1%, over time they could garner enough to get 100%.  The above 160 Mag RAC would end up with (if they got 100% for uptime) 1600 BBP the first day, and over a moderate time would be able to get 100% for Mag.

I don't think your argument of a 5% total stake of this coin will bring about stability. I would say you would need at least 50% of the total coin supply. If you can't reach that level, then all we are doing is purposely giving more advantage to average users. Which to say is not a bad thing, but I think people with high computing power will disagree.

We should at least do a log curve for the staking if this really passes. Also, I hope if only 20 people vote on the poll  we don't write this into stone, there should be a minimum number of votes. Not a lot of people are actually active on this forum.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: znffal on March 10, 2018, 12:48:45 PM
I don't think your argument of a 5% total stake of this coin will bring about stability. I would say you would need at least 50% of the total coin supply. If you can't reach that level, then all we are doing is purposely giving more advantage to average users. Which to say is not a bad thing, but I think people with high computing power will disagree.

We should at least do a log curve for the staking if this really passes. Also, I hope if only 20 people vote on the poll  we don't write this into stone, there should be a minimum number of votes. Not a lot of people are actually active on this forum.
Yes, we should advertise regularly
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: znffal on March 10, 2018, 06:21:26 PM
Hmmm why Magnitude and not RAC?
There is only 1000 Magnitude split between all researchers
Whereas I assume RAC will mostly keep rising
Why not say 1-20 BBP per 1 RAC?

This isn't a bad idea.
 
Pro: you always know exactly how much you need to stake. If you have 100 RAC then you know you need 1000 BBP in stake (assuming 10 bbp/RAC)

Con: by itself personal RAC doesn't tell you anything about how your contribution rates against other users. Your 100 RAC may be 50% of the network today, but only 5% in a month.

Using RAC would work, but I like the idea of staking proportionally to your percentage of the network a bit better.
One cool thing about it is if your RAC is constant and network RAC increasing then your needed stake is decreasing, freeing up funds for masternodes or selling
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: Rob Andrews on March 10, 2018, 10:05:43 PM
I think staking is a good idea. I still would like a way for people with low hashrates to be able to mine, but I haven't though of a good way to do that yet.

So here is the thing, and it's just me for now. I have a magnitude of 160 and 20k BBP/mag is currently winning, that means I need 3.2M BBP, don't you think that's a bit much? What if we did a log curve? At 20K/mag, we are asking 20M BBP total to be staked, current supply is 452M BBP, which is 5% of the total, if that is the case, the staking is not really making a dent, then do we need to do this? I feel like the real goal here is that you are trying to even out the rewards among lower powered researchers. In the spirit of BOINC, they don't even do that.

I think its reasonable to require a 3 MM investment in order to control 160 magnitude out of 1000 (16% of the total rewards of the DC budget daily).  Thats the whole idea, to make it expensive to play if you have the guns to take share away from the rest of the community.

As far as Log rewards: thats the opposite of what this proposal is.  We want to Penalize you if you are taking all the others share.

Anyway, that 160 magnitude wont last long- it will be 80 then 40 in no time!  So 10K is not going to be too steep in just a couple months :).

I like magnitude much more than RAC - because its a share of the measurement relative to the community and not a squirrely sliding number that has no reference per day to the unknown total participation RAC.

EDIT: Just so you know the spirit Im thinking in terms of, imagine a Saudi King or a Hollywood producers son who jumps in with 512 machines, and controls half of the magnitude, basically we are saying our DC budget can be controlled by the likes of rich well of entities (similar to our old bot-net), yet with this UTXO requirement, they at least have to pay to play, meaning that if they cant afford it the pie stays divided in more pieces for more mass general consumption.

Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: T-Mike on March 10, 2018, 10:32:39 PM
I think its reasonable to require a 3 MM investment in order to control 160 magnitude out of 1000 (16% of the total rewards of the DC budget daily).  Thats the whole idea, to make it expensive to play if you have the guns to take share away from the rest of the community.

As far as Log rewards: thats the opposite of what this proposal is.  We want to Penalize you if you are taking all the others share.

Anyway, that 160 magnitude wont last long- it will be 80 then 40 in no time!  So 10K is not going to be too steep in just a couple months :).

I like magnitude much more than RAC - because its a share of the measurement relative to the community and not a squirrely sliding number that has no reference per day to the unknown total participation RAC.

It's good what you wrote, the whole point was to give more to lower computing power users. But to me, it's the same thing as saying we are going to penalized you for having too much money in your bank account!

I agree with Togo, if your going to stake, staking by RAC will result in more BBP being staked. With magnitude, you are limited to 1000*(whatever the community decides).
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: 616westwarmoth on March 11, 2018, 12:23:15 AM
I think the issue with staking via RAC is imagine a year from now when we have 49M RAC on Team Biblepay.  Yes, the circulation will have grown substantially by then, but the daily rewards will be about 80% of what they are now.  So today, 70K RAC is 63 Mag granting 90K coins a day (roughly under the corrected distribution), whereas in the above it is 1.5 Mag granting (roughly) 1800 coins a day.  Having to stake 10 BBP/RAC would be 700K BBP which today is probably reasonable, but a year from now, quite the impediment to the low power crowd.

In the end I see the stake/Mag being optimal, I would even say it should be higher to level the playing field which is I think the goal as much as anti-bots and coin stability.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: znffal on March 11, 2018, 01:13:52 AM
The person from Japan already has 100k RAC from a couple days on Rosetta. He also roughly doubled his machine count in 24 hours. This guy is seriously on track to get 50% of our RAC.
Right now he has to stake 50,001 BBP. Under 10k per MAG he would need
5,000,000 BBP. And if he could he would make his stake back in less than 10 days!

I don't think we have much of a choice but to implement this, or something similar
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: znffal on March 11, 2018, 01:28:25 AM
It's good what you wrote, the whole point was to give more to lower computing power users. But to me, it's the same thing as saying we are going to penalized you for having too much money in your bank account!

I agree with Togo, if your going to stake, staking by RAC will result in more BBP being staked. With magnitude, you are limited to 1000*(whatever the community decides).

Interesting, I imagine our Japanese whale will reach 1,000,000 RAC in a couple of weeks. Under 10BBP/RAC he would stake 10 million. Under 10k bbp per magnitude I think it would be closer to 5 million (50% of our RAC, approximately)
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: znffal on March 11, 2018, 03:49:39 AM
From the bitcointalk forum:

"AND WE NEED NO LINEAR MAG,UTXO system but EXPONENCIAL

example:

MAG1= 1000 BBP
MAG2= 2000 BBP
MAG3= 5000 BBP
MAG4= 9000 BBP
etc"



This is actually worth considering because if we could find an appropriate function we could set it low for mags <5 or so and have it increasingly difficult to get majority share. We'd have to think carefully about the form of the function. An exponential will probably rise too fast. Polynomial could work, or my own candidate, x^2.75.

I like x^2.75 because it nicely satisfies the requirement to let people mine easily at low magnitudes but rises rapidly for larger. For example

Mag (x):     x^2.75

1                  1
10                 562
100              316227
500               26 million


Of course the problem is always going to be that people will just create multiple accounts to get around this.
So how about a function

F(x) = 50,000 if x < 10
           x^2.75   if x>= 10


Or something like that.

Just an idea for discussion. I want to really make sure that anyone who is trying to control 50% of the Magnitude is really paying through the nose.

Please keep in mind, this Japanese Rosetta miner, if they get to 50% of total Magnitude (which I would not be surprised) they will be making ~ 700k BBP/day, so even a stake of 7 million they make it back in 10 days.

Ok, I'm tired and starting to not think straight. Goodnight all
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: MIP on March 11, 2018, 05:29:03 AM
Our Japanese friend probably has already 10M, and if he was our famous "botnet" guy (I would bet on that safely), he probably made more than 700k a day on the previous heat mining phase.

Not much we can do against that, even introducing any staking schema (which is still a good idea on itself)
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: znffal on March 11, 2018, 05:54:20 AM
Our Japanese friend probably has already 10M, and if he was our famous "botnet" guy (I would bet on that safely), he probably made more than 700k a day on the previous heat mining phase.

Not much we can do against that, even introducing any staking schema (which is still a good idea on itself)

Yes that's quite true.
So I can't sleep... Using something other than linear can be circumvented with multiple accounts. So possibly there is no advantage there.

I was thinking though, when rewards are around 1.3 million daily, magnitude of 1 will earn 1300 BBP per day. We could set the stake to be N days worth of rewards at that magnitude. E.g 30 days. Magnitude =1, stake=1300*30=39, 000.
Magnitude 10, stake =1300*30*10=390,000
Mag 100, stake 3,900,000
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: T-Mike on March 11, 2018, 10:20:10 AM
Yes that's quite true.
So I can't sleep... Using something other than linear can be circumvented with multiple accounts. So possibly there is no advantage there.

I was thinking though, when rewards are around 1.3 million daily, magnitude of 1 will earn 1300 BBP per day. We could set the stake to be N days worth of rewards at that magnitude. E.g 30 days. Magnitude =1, stake=1300*30=39, 000.
Magnitude 10, stake =1300*30*10=390,000
Mag 100, stake 3,900,000

So just for discussion, what are you trying to level the playing field. What's the purpose and pros and cons for the economy and for the rich and poor.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: 616westwarmoth on March 11, 2018, 11:02:55 AM
The pros are that smaller users need to be able to get into the coin for the coin to grow.  With little chance to successfully mine they'll move on.   For the most part, the coin would be healthier with 10,000 users with a Mag of .1 versus 100 users with a Mag of 10.

The cons are it introduces a complexity to the system that could be confusing or breakdown or be even seen as aggressive against new users.

Right now it's financially sound to PoDC with VPN, so the RAC will continue to rise rapidly until that point is exceeded.  The issue is that will further consolidate the coins into a few hands of the richest users as they are the only ones who can realistically afford a $300/day VPN bill.

Any system that is not linear will be cheated by users making multiple accounts to circumvent them, so while I think it is very reasonable that a high RAC user pay a larger stake/RAC than a small one, the reality is enough users will circumvent it to their own advantage.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: T-Mike on March 11, 2018, 11:25:24 AM
The pros are that smaller users need to be able to get into the coin for the coin to grow.  With little chance to successfully mine they'll move on.   For the most part, the coin would be healthier with 10,000 users with a Mag of .1 versus 100 users with a Mag of 10.

The cons are it introduces a complexity to the system that could be confusing or breakdown or be even seen as aggressive against new users.

Right now it's financially sound to PoDC with VPN, so the RAC will continue to rise rapidly until that point is exceeded.  The issue is that will further consolidate the coins into a few hands of the richest users as they are the only ones who can realistically afford a $300/day VPN bill.

Any system that is not linear will be cheated by users making multiple accounts to circumvent them, so while I think it is very reasonable that a high RAC user pay a larger stake/RAC than a small one, the reality is enough users will circumvent it to their own advantage.

I agree that the more users the better, I'm still thinking about how we can allow normal users to run PoDC without staking or being able to do  PoBH without having an active CPID. The technical knowledge required with PoDC is way over the head for many people
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: orbis on March 11, 2018, 12:27:24 PM
It seems that no strategy exists for making it harder for "big brothers"
Linear or exponential staking won't work because of multiple accounts.
High stake (e.g. 50000/magnitude) won't be good for small or new users but big whales won't have problem with it.
We all know that it is not good to have someone with such a big amount of coins because if he decide he dump the price to the zero in a minute.
Kicking someone from team is an option.
But that will be precedens and the question is who will be next kicked out?
And like west written, there is no problem to buy VPN if you have money.
Maybe it is possible to track rosetta PC IDs but that won't be problem to change it too. Or invitation system to team? Is it possible? But then it will be really centralized :)
So it looks, that we must just live with big whales and hope that they don't dump the price when they will have bad day.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: aikida3k on March 11, 2018, 12:46:06 PM
I think the issue with staking via RAC is imagine a year from now when we have 49M RAC on Team Biblepay.  Yes, the circulation will have grown substantially by then, but the daily rewards will be about 80% of what they are now.  So today, 70K RAC is 63 Mag granting 90K coins a day (roughly under the corrected distribution), whereas in the above it is 1.5 Mag granting (roughly) 1800 coins a day.  Having to stake 10 BBP/RAC would be 700K BBP which today is probably reasonable, but a year from now, quite the impediment to the low power crowd.

In the end I see the stake/Mag being optimal, I would even say it should be higher to level the playing field which is I think the goal as much as anti-bots and coin stability.

I like another idea.  I like the idea of decreasing the amount of stake per RAC with the lower distribution.  A nice benefit of staking per RAC is that the amount staked based on RAC will keep growing instead of being static at say 10 million.  The benefit of a growing stake is that it would bring in a new element to the coin - traders, people not necessarily looking to crunch or mine and instead hold for appreciation.  A drawback of the coin now is that it is full of miners and crunchers-- miners and crunchers are natural sellers.  They have expenses to cover.  This coin needs a way to bring in buyers, people who just want to own the coin without having to crunch or mine.  Staking based on RAC would help to do that because traders could come in to "front run" the growth in the network.  So then buying and holding BBP becomes a bet that the network will grow and the coin will appreciate based on an increasing amount staked.  Staking based on RAC gives the coin more value:  you need to get BBP in order to increase the number of computers you are using to crunch.  With staking based on MAG, the amount required to stake per user will shrink as the network grows even though the amount staked will stay static at say 10 million.  Staking per MAG doesn't give us a consistent supply sponge, whereas staking per RAC will sop up supply and drive price higher.  Staking per MAG gives us a 10M lockup which is a fraction of the amount locked up by sanctuaries.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: aikida3k on March 11, 2018, 01:25:14 PM
The way mining and crunching is right now is a race to the bottom:  Anyone will add computers to the point of becoming even with breakevens.  Adding computers adds expenses to the miner and adds to the amount that they must sell, thus lowering prices.  Staking per MAG has only a fractional lockup compared to sanctuaries, it won't make much of a price difference.  Staking based on RAC introduces a VIRTUOUS cycle and cures the race to the bottom.  Increasing network size has to be met with increasing stake.  Increasing stake amount should lead to increasing prices.  Increasing prices leads to higher breakevens.  Higher breakevens lead to a growing network.  A growing network leads to increasing stakes, which leads to higher prices....  A virtuous cycle.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: znffal on March 11, 2018, 02:34:01 PM
Ok so I changed my vote to 50,000 per Magnitude.

Reason is this: When rewards drop to around 1.3 million BBP total, 1mag = 1(/1000)*1.3 million = 1300 BBP.
This means that it will take ~39 days to pay back your stake which I think is reasonable.

In fact, it is bad for myself personally because it is a lot of stake, but I think it is best for the coin overall.


EDIT: For comparison:

BBP/magnitude      days to pay back stake

250                               0.2 days
500                               0.38 days
1000                             0.77 days
2500                             1.92 days
5000                              3.85 days
10000                            7.7 days
20000                             15.4 days
50000                             38.5 days
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: aikida3k on March 11, 2018, 02:56:26 PM
50000 still becomes a static 50 million lockup.  For comparison we have 169 masternodes which gives a lockup of nearly 262 million.  Right now total supply is 459 million.  So that lockup of 262 million increased price from a consistent 10-20 satoshi to a consistent 25-35 satoshi with some higher peaks.  I like staking to RAC because it will sop up supply, and it should still be affordable if bitcoin takes off whereas masternodes will become unaffordable while we still have a lot of supply to come.  I can imagine a scenario where the annual returns are attractive on masternodes, but the price because of bitcoin makes them expensive and out of reach for most people, but they could still afford to either buy and hold, or buy, stake and crunch. 
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: aikida3k on March 11, 2018, 03:26:21 PM
Staking per MAG keeps the race to the bottom in.  Right now a rational player will introduce as many computers to crunch as capital will allow because breakevens are so high.  Therefore introduce as many computers as capital allows until your breakeven is reached.  Sell your biblepay on the market.  In the process biblepay has no natural buyers, only natural sellers- the miners and the crunchers.  Buyers, not miners are the ones who are really supporting the orphans.  Miners and crunchers introduce supply while buyers sop up supply.  It works the same way in all commodities:  If the price of oil is above your expected breakeven, you go out and explore for more oil until you reach your breakevens.  In the process you introduce more supply on the market which eventually makes prices come down again.  If you are a cattle rancher and prices are above your breakeven, you increase your herd size and your production until you reach your breakevens.  Selling your calves on the market with greater supply eventually brings prices back down.  The difference between BBP and oil and cattle?  There are natural buyers:  people have to buy oil to make gasoline and diesel.  People have to buy fat cattle to make beef.  People don't have to keep buying BBP once the static stake amount to magnitude is reached, however, staking to RAC, miners then become natural buyers as they seek to increase the amount of BBP they can generate.  Traders and investors see this and are encouraged and buy. 

We don't do enough to encourage buyers.  Staking to RAC would help that.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: MIP on March 12, 2018, 10:38:40 AM
I'm also for the staking-per-RAC idea.

It allows decoupling users from what other team members are doing (as it would happen with a relative number as magnitude). It can also boost the coin price and incentives to keep it instead selling it.

You add more CPU power = you must stake more BBP. 

We can even afford to change the number of BBP per RAC unit in the future as we see the evolution of this new PoDC system (for example if the overall RAC of the team surpasses the amount of BBP in circulation).

Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: 616westwarmoth on March 12, 2018, 12:52:06 PM
I commented in the other poll, but here is a short version of why staking per RAC is, to me, not workable.

Right now, if you stake per RAC at 10BBP/RAC, a 10K RAC machine would make roughly 15K BBP/day, and need a stake of 100K.  So 8 days to stake equity, much to fast in my thoughts.  But by the end of the year I expect us to be at 20M RAC and the reward will have dropped by about 12%, so the same 10K machine would make about 700BBP/day, or 150 days to stake equity.

Any system that doesn't slide based on the reward (which then becomes hard to understand) will be too generous to us now or too restrictive to us later.

The most fair system would be very hard to explain to new users, but would be some multiple of your daily reward held as stake, 100x or 150x spring to mind.  But coding that and presenting that in a way that could be easily to predict would likely be too complex for many new users.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: T-Mike on March 12, 2018, 03:01:22 PM
I commented in the other poll, but here is a short version of why staking per RAC is, to me, not workable.

Right now, if you stake per RAC at 10BBP/RAC, a 10K RAC machine would make roughly 15K BBP/day, and need a stake of 100K.  So 8 days to stake equity, much to fast in my thoughts.  But by the end of the year I expect us to be at 20M RAC and the reward will have dropped by about 12%, so the same 10K machine would make about 700BBP/day, or 150 days to stake equity.

Any system that doesn't slide based on the reward (which then becomes hard to understand) will be too generous to us now or too restrictive to us later.

The most fair system would be very hard to explain to new users, but would be some multiple of your daily reward held as stake, 100x or 150x spring to mind.  But coding that and presenting that in a way that could be easily to predict would likely be too complex for many new users.

I would argue that the most fair system is to not enforce staking at all.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: MIP on March 14, 2018, 06:54:19 AM
My humble opinion:

Even though we know that helping orphans/distressed people is a comforting feeling, we must also watch for the investor interest.

Remember, no investors (mining, MN, traders...) = no coin = no help for the needy

The average investor is our friend, not our enemy. We don't have to scare or fear them, we need to manage them so there is no room for unnecessary greed, but for healthy returns.

To distribute wealth, first we need to create it. So I agree with some of T-Mike points.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: Rob Andrews on March 14, 2018, 10:24:31 AM
My humble opinion:

Even though we know that helping orphans/distressed people is a comforting feeling, we must also watch for the investor interest.

Remember, no investors (mining, MN, traders...) = no coin = no help for the needy

The average investor is our friend, not our enemy. We don't have to scare or fear them, we need to manage them so there is no room for unnecessary greed, but for healthy returns.

To distribute wealth, first we need to create it. So I agree with some of T-Mike points.

I really dont understand your perspective here MIP, I think my opinion is completely aligned with the investor.

Im Not here for the Miner, Im here for the small unbanked home PC driven average joe six pack and the investor.

Not sure how you can come to the conclusion Im here for the 1% or the botnet LOL :)

Sorry if I came across harshly Mike-T, I guess I made the assumption that you were biased because you own 20% of the magnitude.

Lets call a truce and start over with a clean slate.

Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: T-Mike on March 14, 2018, 02:38:04 PM
I really dont understand your perspective here MIP, I think my opinion is completely aligned with the investor.

Im Not here for the Miner, Im here for the small unbanked home PC driven average joe six pack and the investor.

Not sure how you can come to the conclusion Im here for the 1% or the botnet LOL :)

Sorry if I came across harshly Mike-T, I guess I made the assumption that you were biased because you own 20% of the magnitude.

Lets call a truce and start over with a clean slate.

Agreed Rob, thank you for the apology.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: MIP on March 15, 2018, 05:44:54 AM
Not sure how you can come to the conclusion Im here for the 1% or the botnet LOL :)

I was not targeting you in my comments, it was just an open thought.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: jaapgvk on March 16, 2018, 03:31:29 AM
I'm still really trying to wrap my head around the economics behind the Mag/RAC proposal. But would it maybe be an idea to have a Stake per MAG version with inflation (relative to the deflation of BBP or something)?

So the amount of total BBP that needs to be staked per MAG would inflate with for example 1.8% per month.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: jaapgvk on March 30, 2018, 04:35:37 PM
Still haven't voted. Both sides have their merits. Does anyone have any last-minute thoughts?
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: 616westwarmoth on March 31, 2018, 10:02:14 AM
I'll be honest, I like the Mag better but will try and be fair to both sides.  Under any circumstances, either system will be more equitable than the original one and should help reduce the impact of botnets and provide more balance between big and small users.  The downside of both is they are more complex than the original system and might confuse new users.

The original system by most standards is cheap for big users and costly for small users.  It's very unfair.

The RAC system will lock up more coins and grow as the coin supply grows (100M under the current leader and values).  We already lock up a lot with Masternodes, but that is suspected to become a smaller percentile over time so RAC Staking would help keep more coins locked and off the market.  That should add stability to the price.  The down side is it's not out of the question that we could be at 20M RAC next year.  The RAC system actually benefits current users more so than future users, because right now 10 Mag would be about 10K BBP/ Day and require roughly 1M BBP (at 20 BBP/RAC) to be staked.  In a year that same 50K would (in a 20M RAC team) only grant about 2.5 Mag, would be about a 2K/Day reward but still require 1M BBP to be staked.  So the ROI is far better today than it will ever be, unless we constantly change the staking requirement and gives, to me, an unfair early adopter advantage.  Constantly changing is to me a negative and any self-correcting system will add a lot of complexity.

The Mag system will keep a constant number of coins locked up (10M under the current leader).  This will be a smaller and smaller percentage of the supply as the coin supply increases.  It has the benefits that if we choose a good number, we won't have to tweak it down the road and, to me, is more fair as in the above example 10 Mag would require 100K (with the current leader of 10K/Mag) to stake to receive the 10K reward, and in the future it would require 25K Staked to receive the 2K/Day reward.  So the ROI remains constant.  The downside is even under the most ambitious selection of 50K/Mag, Mag Staking is going to require less and will do less to balance the playing field between larger users and new users.

I personally voted 50K / MAG which is the highest MAG choice and still likely a bit too low.  I do think for now, 20 / RAC is a good option but I think it will have to be revised downward every 3 to 6 months as our RAC increases.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: fahq420 on April 01, 2018, 01:51:26 AM
It doesnt allow me to vote, i understand you want real users, not botnets.

but IMO forcing people to stake the coin to get rewarded for mining the coin... is a HUGE mistake. Also, this huge convoluted process of boinc with the 2 projects and stuff... is potentially going to keep the range of users this coin gets used by, extremely small.   I've been mining for Several years, way before mt gox, and bitmain were even around. Not trying to say that i know more than any one, but i have been listening to "normal every day miners" for quite some time, and I think the way this is going with all the complications, is not going to do well for the coin in general, but i pray that you find a way to make it work... The Lord (and his word, and so forth) needs to available to all.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: jaapgvk on April 01, 2018, 04:34:12 AM
It doesnt allow me to vote, i understand you want real users, not botnets.

but IMO forcing people to stake the coin to get rewarded for mining the coin... is a HUGE mistake. Also, this huge convoluted process of boinc with the 2 projects and stuff... is potentially going to keep the range of users this coin gets used by, extremely small.   I've been mining for Several years, way before mt gox, and bitmain were even around. Not trying to say that i know more than any one, but i have been listening to "normal every day miners" for quite some time, and I think the way this is going with all the complications, is not going to do well for the coin in general, but i pray that you find a way to make it work... The Lord (and his word, and so forth) needs to available to all.

The poll is closed.

Could you maybe read this guide and give feedback if possible on how to make the process easier? https://www.biblepay-central.org/en/mining-how-to/

The staking bit should just say that the wallet sets the staking-amount automatically (or stake everything you have if you have less than what is calculated by the wallet).
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: sunk818 on May 11, 2018, 01:43:49 PM
Can you make Magnitude 0 to 100 instead of 1,000? 0 to 100 makes more sense as a percentage than 0 to 1000. Easier to comprehend right away.
Title: Re: Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining
Post by: jaapgvk on May 17, 2018, 10:38:03 AM
Can you make Magnitude 0 to 100 instead of 1,000? 0 to 100 makes more sense as a percentage than 0 to 1000. Easier to comprehend right away.

I agree with this. It's more intuitive.