Bible Pay

Show Posts

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


Messages - Rob Andrews

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 93
1
Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving
« on: December 15, 2018, 06:14:17 pm »
the above command isn't working for me in the debug console.

12:52:24 exec tithe
12:52:24 You must specify amount, min_coin_age (days), min_coin_amount.  IE: exec tithe 200 1 1000. (code -1)

12:52:27 exec tithe 250
12:52:27 JSON value is not a string as expected (code -1)

Good find, I just added this to the bug list.  Working on it.


2
Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving
« on: December 15, 2018, 06:12:15 pm »
Is there a frequency that is observed for "tithing"? TestNet seems to be about once an hour. If I were to tithe 30 minutes after an automated send, that is considered an illegal tithe?  If the transaction is not created, it wouldn't be in the "unconfirmed" stage. Unconfirmed seems like it would encourage more confusion to new users.

No you can manually tithe as often as you want and it wont be illegal - as long as its a legal tithe.  Legal means it fits the difficulty parameters.

If it were any other way people would try to game the system by writing scripts to tithe.

The frequency is once per hour in testnet.

Im making it so you can override that in the settings next.


3
Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving
« on: December 15, 2018, 06:10:48 pm »
I'm seeing PoG reward available after 6 confirmations.

Oh you are relying on the checkmark on the UI, that is just a display bug.

Coinbases are not spendable until 102 confirms.  You can look in your "unconfirmed" balance to see all your POGs arent available.

Ill look at the checkmark bug.


4
Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving
« on: December 15, 2018, 12:08:42 pm »
getblockhash is correct for me.

Keep getting this:

2018-12-15 18:03:55
 Illegal tithe @height 87725.000000, max amount 296.500000  amount 296.710000 vout 1
 Illegal tithe @height 87835.000000, max amount 296.490000  amount 296.710000 vout 2
 Illegal tithe @height 87883.000000, max amount 296.930000  amount 297.150000 vout 1 ProcessNewBlock : ACCEPTED

If a tithe is illegal, maybe one can be resent as a test and if it works send it along.

Or illegal tithe should be abandoned? It keeps showing up in the logs... is that right?  I assume it'll keep showing up because the transactions can't be abandoned currently or resent?

So on the illegal tithe, I can say with relative certainty what I "think" is happening.  (Note that Illegal Tithe and POG Pool Recipients Invalid are mostly for logging, for us to ensure we have prevented those problems in test, and then they become very rare cases of things that arent supposed to happen in prod).

I believe due to people upgrading and being on forks, the difficulty level is not exactly the same on 3 forks.  Once we all agree on the block hash, we should re-tithe, and then watch the log for one day and see that the error has dissapeared.

To answer your question though the pool will not induct an illegal tithe.  But those will be forced on their own chain anyway, so this error should dissapear once we are synced together.

(The givers actual tithe was legal on his own chain) - just illegal on our chain.


5
Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving
« on: December 15, 2018, 11:56:55 am »
Ok, Testnet seems stuck at block 87697


Im surprised so few are testing - I believe we should be able to recover because the rule was our normal rejection rule for old versions; however on a side note Im starting to dislike that rule as it really shakes up the whole system - its as if its worse to require a mandatory that way than for me to add a block version field on my logging - anyway



getblockhash 87915
f042dfcb5d9265ef681ffbe1bf3577274bcdcd13411d340a37d179ca10616810

This morning looks like we got past that does yours agree?  I have two nodes running that agree.  My 3rd is not even synced halfway let me see if I can get a third up to 87915.






6
Pre-Proposal Discussion / Re: Mass Adoption for BiblePay II
« on: December 15, 2018, 11:53:16 am »
We will always have both,  POG will take 80% but the plan was POBH would earn 20% (block miner)

Exactly, this way solo mining pays 20% but the lions share of the pool is in-client. 

Note that I think it would be a really good idea for us to test POG in prod with POBH only (as we all agreed on so far) and write down exactly how many pool miners (in POG) we see per day - for example a pool.biblepay.org report that pulls in the exec pogpool stats in SQL so we can make a graph.  It would be very valuable to see if POG results in a daily increase in biblepay use. 

Of course we can just add pog diff to the current difficulty chart also.


7
Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving
« on: December 14, 2018, 11:02:35 am »
Anyone with a chain height higher than 87000, please erase and resync.

The problem is if your height was higher than us when you upgraded, you let more blocks in on 1.1.6.5 (that will be rejected by 1.1.6.6) so its preventing us from syncing.

8
Production Proposals / Re: Use Discourse as Main Forum
« on: December 14, 2018, 09:44:29 am »
It's on my list.. not the highest priority (Working building out the web toolset.  BiblepayRabbi is an interesting name, but I thought the term was reserved for Jewish teachers...  We need something scholarly but biblical.. )

I do think it will help adoption, I will work on it as I need distractions/mental breaks from my main tasks. 

Apparently there is a conversion script available, I will look into it more.

I agree Rabbi isn't going to fit, I said it in the sense of an oracle, but its too hard to justify with the gospel at the same time on the front lines.


9
Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving
« on: December 13, 2018, 09:30:38 pm »
1.1.6.6 - Mandatory Upgrade for TestNet


The new version is ready.


10
Production Proposals / Re: Use Togo's Bitcointalk ANN Redesign
« on: December 13, 2018, 05:36:54 pm »
Rob, all I really care about is increasing number of conversions/investors for BiblePay,
I believe my design is better than your current design in that regard

Please merge my design based on its own merits
and not judge or block using it because of whatever drama is in that thread

Interesting, so I pointed out a couple flaws in your thread and you are basically saying "I think they should be there".

1.   Do you then think your lack of moderating it is correct, to leave the mean spirited comments in and allow it to stay unmoderated, while accusing me of bad moderation in the same thread?

2.  Do you mean you will resist my suggestion to rename your thread as supporter, as it is drawing potential investors over to the non official thread and confusing them? 






11
Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving
« on: December 13, 2018, 05:12:47 pm »
1.1.6.5 - Mandatory Upgrade for TestNet


The new version is ready.


Wait, I found yet another bug.

I'm sorry... It didnt reveal itself til I synced my 3rd node.

Please wait for the new testnet version again.


12
Production Proposals / Re: Use Discourse as Main Forum
« on: December 13, 2018, 01:37:31 pm »
Hey Rob, thank you for your valuable feedback on this

On the topic of change, I personally get attached to original GUIs,
for instance, I still used the original BiblePay wallet theme for a loooong time before finally switching to the bezaleel theme,
and I got upset when Gmail forced new GUI on me haha

Forum wise, I like SMF / phpBB layout vs the Discourse layout, the discourse layout is weird, I like what Im used to

But I do like this quote: "The only constant is change"
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Heraclitus

=

Comparison of Internet forum software
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software

=

Proposal wise, I agree this proposal lacks any funding,
its more of a "Should we use Discourse over SMF?", I probably should have worded it that way or started it as a pre-proposal,
I think Im trying to push consensus through now vs letting it sit for months in discussions

Im not sure what an accurate time estimate is, but it only took me about 2-3 hours to set everything up,
for switching over, add an hour to switch DNS records,  add in hours for migrating accounts/threads/posts
and add in hours for learning a new system, and add in buffer for unknowns
I think the 80 hours estimate is very high, maybe 20-30 hours combined would be my estimate

=

Also, any time Ive spent on this Im donating to BiblePay
Im cool with whatever decision gets made, just offering this as an interesting alternative

I agree on almost all of the above points and discourse doesnt look too bad, especially if PIVX uses it.

However on this one:
"Im not sure what an accurate time estimate is, but it only took me about 2-3 hours to set everything up,
for switching over, add an hour to switch DNS records,  add in hours for migrating accounts/threads/posts
and add in hours for learning a new system, and add in buffer for unknowns
I think the 80 hours estimate is very high, maybe 20-30 hours combined would be my estimate"

I agree with the 20-30 hours for migration tasks other than migrating the entire forum content.
I make the assumption that (not knowing which method we would use to move the data), that we would not move to an empty discourse forum.  IE that we did already manually create the old topics and threads and configure the software (in X hours or so) I assume we still need to move some data.  The rest of this time was a guess on  my part for migrating the data.  I don't know if a data migrator exists or not (from SMF to discourse).  This is basically padding the estimate to ensure TheSnat would want to entrench himself in this endeavor.

Im neutral on this subject- so I think we should let thesnat weight in more on this as I feel we would be pushing the lions share of work over to him if we switch to discourse.  (Especially if he is willing to be hosting the forum etc).  He might be working on POG PHP pages, or proposal enhancements, or wanting to run a copy of dashninja (we should consider calling that BiblePayRabbi if we ever do that) etc.  I would like to see how he would like to spend his next 6 month time.  If he wants to push this off and still do it later please let us know Snat.



13
Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving
« on: December 13, 2018, 11:56:45 am »
1.1.6.5 - Mandatory Upgrade for TestNet


The new version is ready.


14
Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving
« on: December 13, 2018, 09:14:54 am »
Please don't test this new version 1.1.6.4 - I found a bug.

Will need a new release.


15
Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving
« on: December 12, 2018, 05:39:25 pm »
Question to the user who crashed, did you crash with 0 blocks in the chain?  If so I reproduced and fixed that in 1164, if not let us know how to reproduce.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 93