Bible Pay

Governance => Archived Proposals => Topic started by: Rob Andrews on August 29, 2018, 02:48:27 PM

Title: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: Rob Andrews on August 29, 2018, 02:48:27 PM
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.






Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: sunk818 on August 29, 2018, 04:03:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: 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.

Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: 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  ;)
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: Rob Andrews on August 29, 2018, 04:31:29 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).



Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: Rob Andrews on August 29, 2018, 04:32:48 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. 

Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: thesnat21 on August 29, 2018, 04:36:26 PM
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).

Fair enough.   With POBH being lower (been averaging 500kh-1mh) we should retain some security.

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.

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)


Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: klondike on August 29, 2018, 04:44:48 PM
1MAG= 10 000 RAC=1 dedicated server= 20 new accounts= free mining w/staking
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: Rob Andrews on August 29, 2018, 04:56:23 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).


Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: Rob Andrews on August 29, 2018, 04:58:03 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... 
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: klondike on August 29, 2018, 05:03:49 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 :(
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: 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 [email protected]/WCG and still have liquidation issues because GridCoin miners sell their BBP.

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 [email protected] 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.

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.
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: klondike on August 29, 2018, 05:38:09 PM
but for free staking my rac will be same and my MAG will be falling when will be exists more miners  ;)
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: 616westwarmoth on August 29, 2018, 06:34:02 PM
Let's break this up into pieces.

No Staking for Mag < 1:  Right now that our RAC is 7,566,293 (that is effective RAC, since some RAC is not staked at 100%).  Our real RAC is 3,792,636 WCG and 5,609,297 [email protected] for an total of 11,298,251.  I'm going to use the secondary figure as if we're trying to boost our users we should get there pretty fast.  That means right now 1 MAG = 11,300 RAC.  That is a pretty smoking home system or a weak two processor Xeon server.  I don't believe it's fair to say that someone that has a Threadrippper or a Dual-Processor Server is suddenly going to start mining BBP because they can do it without staking.   Additionally, if we did double the number of miners, you'd get to the point where a high end server no longer needs staking.  There are alternatives, people can PoDC without stake at BBPPool.com.  The Airdrop will enable most average home users to PoDC at near 100% without changing the system.   Additionally given the cheating that occurred with likely botnets, and the ease at which one could run multiple instances on a single server, this effectively means anyone with the technical skill and the desire to get ahead will not have to stake.  That staking will then flow into Sanctuaries or flood the market, both of which hurt the coin (decreasing ROI for Sanctuaries or increased downward price pressure).

Team Removal:  Right now our Team Stats are incredible.  That we've not been able to capitalize on that is a shame, although I'm as clueless as anyone why that is.  So if we remove our team requirement then nearly every power user will migrate to GRC and double dip with BBP.  The same way some of us are double dipping with Byteball.  I can say with 100% certainty, me personally double dipping with Byteball has done very little for them, short of the fact I've shared it several times with others.  So I'm actually taking away from the return of people that legitimately support the coin.  The only way this is somewhat beneficial is if the Staking requirements stay the same.  Then we likely gain a few new users from GRC who buy BBP to Stake with, providing a temporary boost in price.  But I doubt we gain any more than we are with the Airdrop (as right now, BBP is approximately 10x more profitable to mine than GRC on [email protected] and WCG).  There are more than 1000 users at GRC that have competency with crypto and a RAC of less than 10K. So without staking, we could see a large number of new miners, spiking our RAC, reducing the returns for current users and having dubious conversion rates.

Free CPID: Not a bad idea, not likely to be spammed as 1 BBP is not worth much even in aggregate.  The question becomes can you CPID with less than 1 BBP?  If so, how much less?  If so, then that should be the amount for free.

CPID in last superblock:  I thought this had already been reworked to be RAC in the last week?

Investors:  Right now I'm not sure what the difficulty is getting new users that are purely investors (i.e., not miners).  I suppose the lack of utility is one thing.  We're competing in a very crowded market, a very bear market crypto wise.  The main thing we currently offer the average user is the charity aspect, but the charity is emission based, so the average investor is not actually contributing to the core mission of the coin.  I'm also unclear on how the possible DAHF will benefit coin holders if one could participate in the hedge fund without holding BBP (and if you have to have BBP to participate, then that brings us closer to a security which is not ideal).

To summarize:
No staking: Against, too easy to cheat
No Team BBP: Against, lose our marketing edge, questionable conversion rate, detrimental to current users
Free CPID: For, if it can be done in a manner to prevent abuse
CPID not in Superblock:  Confused, thought you could PoBH if you had a Mag in the last 7 days
Investors: A mystery.  They're not jumping in now (when our price is near record lows), what do they want other than ROI?
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: thesnat21 on August 29, 2018, 09:07:20 PM
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).

Fair enough,  I didn't mean to imply you were...  Hope that came across ok.
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: Rob Andrews on August 29, 2018, 09:20:20 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 [email protected]/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 [email protected] 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.

Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: SVK Noko on August 30, 2018, 12:13:54 AM
...
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.
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: jmmc on August 30, 2018, 02:47:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: Rob Andrews on August 30, 2018, 07:29:59 AM
"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.

Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: talisman on August 30, 2018, 09:35:22 AM
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 :)
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: Rob Andrews on August 30, 2018, 10:15:44 AM
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.

Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: T-Mike on August 30, 2018, 11:17:39 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.
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: thesnat21 on August 30, 2018, 11:37:12 AM
I dunno .. the more I think about it the more I think we need to take a step back.

I'm not for making changes this drastic without giving it some time to settle and looking at other options.

I've been working for months to get enough for staking my PODC,   gradually increasing my payout.

I think opening the floodgate will alienate most core users.   Lower rewards significantly, and adding more sell pressure.

I don't see how this will help us long-term.

The other option I thought of if this has to go through,   is limit the contribution from anyone non-bbp grouped.
 say 10% of their RAC is applied?  (Large miners would be fine with this)   Think of it like Byteball does for WCG.   They give some credit but it's not meant to be a replacement.


Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: togoshigekata on August 30, 2018, 07:35:21 PM
"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?
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: sunk818 on August 31, 2018, 01:26:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: capo on August 31, 2018, 05:59:26 AM
is double dipping so bad? i think this could be one of most attractive features of our coin :)
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: 616westwarmoth on September 01, 2018, 04:18:28 AM
TLDR: I fell it's unlikely we'd gain more than 1.5M Team RAC at the most wildly generous numbers.  This would, if fully staked, add only 30M BBP demand for the coin, which is roughly 1 month of average volume/15 days of newly minted coins.

So, here is my logic on why removing the Team Requirement is not going to help.

First off, as a holder and big PoDC miner of BBP, there are two conflicting thoughts that present before considering the actual primary issue. The first is if the BBP Team Requirement (which I'll save some typing and call BBP-TR) is removed, but we also ban other coin teams (basically Gridcoin and Byteball) then one of two things could happen. One, nothing.  Two, we could spike our RAC.  A spike in Team RAC would make mining unprofitable for most if not all current users unless you had some unique advantage such as dirt cheap power.  So the current miners, like myself would drop out.  So we'd need a HUGE spike to offset this. If we did see a huge spike in RAC and that corresponded to a similar long-term increase in price, then as a big holder, I should welcome this. Sure I wouldn't be mining anymore but, in silly terms, if price went up 100x because the RAC went up 200x, then I'm coming out great!

The issue is this. Look at Byteball. There is no team requirement, in fact wasn't even a Byteball Team for the longest time, and the benefit for being on the team is still small. I'm currently receiving the 11th largest daily distribution at Byteball. Five of the users receiving more are on Team BBP. Three of the users receiving more are the three GRC-pool accounts (which I'm wagering found out about it because of BBP, since BBP-pool is below me). So, in short, I can only account for two users getting more Byteball than me.  But I've got little clue about the coin despite the fact I'm in the top 11.  I'd wager the rest of the other BBP users don't know much about it either and are either 1) cashing out when they mine or 2) hoping for a price increase since this is basically "free" coins. 

So the question becomes,  where are all the team members from Hard[OCP], US Navy, Oracle, Overclock Forums, etc?  Why are they not participating in Byteball? I don't see them in any large numbers (at least in coins rewarded, since again, I've got most the top 10 covered and the top 10 is about half the reward),  Byteball is incredibly easy to set up. It's trivial enough I think my beginner computer friends could get linked to Byteball following the instructions. However, none of them would be able to figure out our coin without help, and then the issue of buying crytpo to stake, would end that discussion. So I don't think (if we block Team Gridcoin and Team Byteball) we'll see many new users from this, since the most crypto savvy ones are going to be blocked. And the rest of the teams, as evidenced by their non-participation in Byteball, which has far less complexity, are not interested.  Or maybe because in part, most of the big teams, don't do much CPU BOINC.

But that thought aside, let's look at some very hard numbers.  If we could get a 1% conversion rate, that is, by removing the BBP-TR, we would get 1% of the overall user base to become BBP users and fully stake their mining, what would that really mean?  (and for the record I think 1% is way too high).  At [email protected], we're anywhere between 15-20% of the daily work done, Gridcoin is usually about 10%.  Yesterday the two teams combined accounted for roughly 29% of the work at [email protected]  So if we got 1% of the remaining 71% that would be 225K RAC.  At World Community Grid, we're about 3%, Gridcoin is about 4.6% and Byteball is about .5%.  So between all three projects we're basically 8% of the total.  Again, if we could get 1% of the remaining 92% that's about 1.2M RAC.  Even rounding up we're looking at, again in my opinion of the best case, roughly 1.5M RAC added to our team.  That would create demand for 30M BBP to stake, which is roughly 1 month of our average volume, or about 15 days worth of newly minted coins.   How would that affect us?  Who knows, but probably not by more than a few satoshi of value in the medium term.

In the end, the market is poor all around.  We've overextended our support of orphans given the fall in price.  Removing the BBP-TR is removing one of the potential major marketing points of the coin, the hard and fast numbers of how many people we've added to the cause of scientific research.  How many we can lay exclusive claim to for being on BOINC.  We're the number 3 team ALL TIME at [email protected], set to be number two by mid-October.  And number one in RAC there.  We're number 89 all time at World Community Grid and should break into the top 50 by the end of the year, all while being the fifth highest there in RAC.  Giving up that potential marketing angle for what I suspect will be a pittance of users seems not worth the effort.  And using that programming time (however small) seems to be a poor use of resources in an increasingly lean time.
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: klondike on September 01, 2018, 11:47:25 PM
wait......if will be blocking GRC will be blocking BYTEBALL?  noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo .....
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: jaapgvk on September 20, 2018, 02:00:37 AM
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%).
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: thesnat21 on September 20, 2018, 06:11:20 AM
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%).

So far, it's not clear which other teams will be excluded.  Hopefully this can be clarified before the proposal is finalized
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: 616westwarmoth on September 20, 2018, 07:03:48 PM
I guess team Gridcoin, Byteball and Neumannium Labs would be the ones I see right off the bat.  Right now the BOINC percentage that is winning is 100%, which I think is entirely counter-productive.  Even though I'm very much against removing the team requirement, I do think that if we do, 90% of the reward to non-team members is enough to give an incentive for people to join our team but not penalize people too much for keeping with their old team.  That being said, even 100% reward is unlikely to trigger in my mind more than a 2-4M coin surge in demand, followed by a routine surge in supply as non-interested miners sell off the coin as they earn them.
Title: Re: BiblePay-Removing the BOINC Team Requirement for possible future Sustainability
Post by: thesnat21 on September 21, 2018, 01:28:25 PM
I guess team Gridcoin, Byteball and Neumannium Labs would be the ones I see right off the bat.  Right now the BOINC percentage that is winning is 100%, which I think is entirely counter-productive.  Even though I'm very much against removing the team requirement, I do think that if we do, 90% of the reward to non-team members is enough to give an incentive for people to join our team but not penalize people too much for keeping with their old team.  That being said, even 100% reward is unlikely to trigger in my mind more than a 2-4M coin surge in demand, followed by a routine surge in supply as non-interested miners sell off the coin as they earn them.

Agreed, and if we are blocking other Crypto's from participating it is taking the audience away.