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 - thesnat21

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11
Production Proposals / Hosting Fees Catch-up
« on: November 07, 2019, 02:28:29 pm »

I have not submitted a proposal since July, so catching up on some expenses
Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov hosting fees.
Last proposal:

I'm requesting 3 months hosting expenses.   30/mo * 4 = 120$
120 / .000264  = 454545 +2500 proposal fee = 457045 bbp

Production Proposals / Hosting Expenses May/June/July
« on: July 22, 2019, 12:53:00 pm »
I have not submitted a proposal since April, so catching up on some expenses (no room the last 2 months :)
Last proposal:

I'm requesting 3 months hosting expenses.   30/mo * 3 = 90$
90 * .000393 = 229000 +2500 proposal fee = 231500bbp

Mining / Re: mining, may 2019
« on: May 17, 2019, 08:11:31 am »
Is the PODC portion done? ive been mining on it (reinstalled last night) the heat mining paid in, but i see no magnitude on the wallet or any recent references to CPID or Boinc..

PODC has been gone for a while now.

Archived Proposals / April IT Expenses
« on: April 29, 2019, 08:53:23 pm »
Hosting expenses
30 / 0.000263   + 2500 = 116500 BBP

Archived Proposals / Re: Side By Side Women of Uganda
« on: April 25, 2019, 09:22:05 am »
Hi all,

Due to some scale backs at BLOOM as well as the lack of funds available with BBP, I had told Sarah we were dropping the BBP kids, but if there is room to sponsor them still in Uganda through BBP, I can facilitate this again if you'd like. I doubt Sarah will ever be able to liquidate the BBP, so it would be easiest for her if it still comes through BLOOM in the monthly wire we already send. I appreciate you sending this current round of funding, however.

Would you like me to submit another proposal for this month, or wait until next month?

Executive Director

He already paid this month so this proposal is more of a re-reimbursement.

Great to have you back in the gang! 
So on the failure to find peers, I truly believe it was the old peer version disconnect - (as last week I added my 3 public nodes to our compiled in testned seed list) so technically I think people should be able to find a peer if they run the latest.

Yes, on the SAN, we do have only one (as there is also another intentional quirk in Dash, that causes it to use the root anyway, so for this SAN dir, we actually store prayers_test in a separate file - so thats OK.

So yeah I didnt enter that prayer, thats quite a long prayer.  Will take a look at these prayers asap.

Working on getting the tools setup for testnet, will see about adding a campaigns tab as well

My windows testnet node is still giving me trouble,  refuses to find any peers.

Side-note:  I got a bit frustrated and deleted the wallet.dat along with all other info .. so no more coins lol

Also,  I noticed the "testnet" client creates/uses the SAN directory in the main client's folder, not the testnet3 folder.

The error message for all peers is: using obsolete version 209 after DIP3 activation; disconnecting

Erm... nevermined

Didn't realize the download link had changed, so i was stuck on .0.6

fixing now

Was this a test? lol

8 Upgrade for TestNet

- Limit nickname length to 10 characters

Can this be increased?   10 Characters can run out rather quickly once we get more main-stream adoption

Active Discussions / Re: Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« on: April 12, 2019, 10:07:51 am »
I wonder if the consolidation can be achieved in an alternative way (as maybe others have suggested in other forums) that is to allow for multiple masternodes on a single host? That would mean allowing each sanc to use a different port. I donít know if that is worth considering or even technically possible.

currently the masternode port is hard-coded into the source.  If I read it right it won't consider a masternode at any other port.

This could be changed, but is a risk I think,   

Since the #1 factor in price is the existence of supply, I believe the opposite of the first statement personally.

(For #1 to be true we would need to have 0 exchange volume).

Someone would need to see enough value and invest enough capital to get us to ~20sat for 1c to be viable (at current btc prices).

Currently it would take someone buying 84 Million BBP to get up to that (based on sell orders).   I realize the sell orders could change, but I see more value coming from value-add / adoption than restricting supply.

If QT is implemented, and we cut our superblock to 60%,   that is 40% less we have to support our obligations.  Though currently we seem to hover around the 18m to 1sat buy orders.

I think in a more mature market, QT makes sense but given the current state of the market I worry it will do more harm than good.

Also, this is more of a broad question, but how do these limits affect the total supply of BBP?
If we cut to 60% is it gone for good, or does it get added on later in the emission schedule?

I'm against this.

We already have a deflationary stance month to month, and even if we reduce emissions to 0 in the current environment I don't expect this to change the price.

I worry this will ultimately mean we cannot fund any of our obligations if we are cutting mining as well as the monthly rewards.

Active Discussions / Re: Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« on: April 07, 2019, 10:52:02 am »
Each individual poll does have the individual ability to win or lose though, and everyone with sanc voting rights can vote on an individual poll currently.
So I wouldnt go as far as saying its "unfair", I would say, this needs to be a strategic decision certainly.
For the "Fair" comment I was referring to MIP's suggestion to combine all the yes's while ignoring the no's.   Seems to defeat the purpose of the proposal system.

I'm for instance holding back and watching the public opinion on this as I dont want to weigh in and hurt the small guys by forcefully voting for the highest for example.  If people seem to gravitate towards the 4.5 then Ill probably weigh in on that.

I appreciate you holding back,  so far it's been interesting to watch the votes.

I do want to exclaim loudly, that I am very very merciful and compassionate for the small investor!  I am not against voting for a reduction in 18 months if our price is 20* higher then.  At the same time, I obviously am against constant changes!  --  Im just saying that I wouldnt want BiblePay to cost $100,000 per sanctuary like Stratis for instance :).

This is fair, and i appreciate the view.

As far as consolidation of power, we are cheap right now, I think its a fair argument to say that a $1,200 slice of BiblePay - will still give One slice of voting power.  Its not true to say that I for example am becoming more powerful.  The remainder of a fractional straggling sanc is what is at stake - and yes a fractional sanc share is what we would be expecting that person to buy on the open market.   (I made my transparent case that we would also on the flip side not really want to let a whale dump extra bbp because they cant manage the day to day activities of running their sancs.  I fit in that category - I  prioritize release punchlist points every day over rebooting sancs in new start required state).

Without a full list of "whales" and who has what share it's difficult to see who this change would help, or hurt.

I get the anonymity part, and it would be good for folks who are willing to voice their opinion (more than just vote) to chime in here.

I wouldn't mind paying less hosting, but I don't want to see previous voices silenced at the same time.  It took me a long time to "mine" my sanc before I got any payroll..    Not everyone has capital to throw into crypto,  my family comes before crypto :)

I do agree we need something to facilitate buys,   but that seems to be more bringing new investors in not changing more of how things are handled today (imo)

Active Discussions / Re: Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« on: April 07, 2019, 07:12:27 am »
I am for some sort of consolidation.

I guess that people for it will vote in only 1 of the 3 proposals (the one they prefer), but owners against it will vote down all 3 proposals.

So I would propose to apply a majority of the sum of all yes votes in 3 proposals against the biggest "no" count in one of the three (will probably be the same number in the 3 proposals)

For example
3MM: 40 yes/200 no
4.5MM: 50 yes/200 no
7MM: 20 yes/200 no
40+50+20=110 yes, 200 no = no wins

3MM: 40 yes/100 no
4.5MM: 50 yes/100 no
7MM: 20 yes/100 no
40+50+20=110 yes, 100 no = yes wins and 4.5MM option wins

I think it's fairer.

No ... This is not "Fairer", as someone who is happy with any of the options could vote 3 times, and have their vote counted 3x.

What I worry this seems like an attempt to consolidate power,  I currently have more than one MN,  and one of the options would exclude me outright . 

I do see value in less for hosting fees, but I do not agree we should be excluding more folks from the voting process.

A more "Fair" way to approach that would be to start with a single poll, "Should we raise the cost of a sanctuary"  get a yes/no on that before trying to figure out which level to raise it to.

Archived Proposals / Re: Side By Side Women of Uganda
« on: April 06, 2019, 07:43:55 pm »
I was curious what happened with this, glad we got it worked out.

Active Discussions / Re: Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« on: April 06, 2019, 01:13:16 pm »
Ill give it a couple more days and if all 3 look unpopular Ill put a smaller one in also  - so please keep an eye out for a smaller option.

All the current negatives might be Slovakia and Noko.

I've voted no with my nodes,  I think the turnout for this vote is more significant than we have had in a  while.    I'd like to run some comparison to see how many nodes voted that have not in a while..  Will do this soon it would be an interesting view..

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11