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 - 616westwarmoth

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Here are my proposed improvements to PoDC:

Modify the staking percentages for rewards :- eliminate the formula for staking percentage and go to a 20 BBP supports 1 RAC system

By eliminating the percentages, you simplify the explanation.  For every 20 BBP you stake, you support 1 BBP RAC.   

  • My BBP RAC is 1000, and I stake 2000 BBP, I have 100 staked RAC (2000/20).
  • My BBP RAC is 100 and I stake 2000 BBP, also have 100 staked RAC (2000/20), same as above
  • My BBP RAC is 1000 and I stake 20,000 BBP, I have 1000 staked RAC (20,000/20) and get 10x the rewards as the previous examples
  • My BBP RAC is 1000 and I stake 100 BBP, I have 5 staked RAC (100/20).  I still get a reward which lowers the barrier to entry

Treat PoDCUpdate Stakes like Sanctuary Stakes : Lock the transaction and require it to still be locked when the daily payout occurs

When PoDCUpdate runs, it checks the users current RAC from the most recent reports.
If there is no existing Locked PoDC Stake, PoDC will create a stake at 110% (or whatever the user has if less than) and lock it.
If there IS an existing Locked PoDC Stake, PoDC will check to ensure it is sufficient (but not excessive) for maximum rewards (roughly 95%-115% stake under the current system, 105%-115% under the 20:1 revision above), create a new Locked stake if it exists outside of those parameters.
At PoDC Payout, the MN network would compare the locked stake amounts to the user RAC and only pay if the stake was still in a locked status.  This would eliminate the unfair stake shuffling that some users had used to circumvent the staking system.

Remove the requirement the PoDC Users mine: The requirement is not generally in force and adds complexity without a commensurate benefit to security

Currently when PoDC is DR0 or DR1, you're supposed to be mining to participate in PoDC.  While there are good arguments for this, it's not been enforced and the primary benefit to me is network hash rate (adds protection from 51% attacks).  However, we have protection in that regard from the no more than 1 in 10 blocks can be mined by a single wallet and think the loss of this would simplify things at a minimal risk.

I would be interested to see the converse be true however...that participating in PoDC at some level (say 1000 RAC) would grant an exclusive mining window of 5 minutes or so but I'm not entirely sure of the potential for abuse there.

Modify Team Requirement20 BBP/RAC for Team Members, 25 or 30 BBP/RAC for non-Team Members

This gives  a bonus to those who are on our team, but allows for people that are attached to their "home" team to still participate.  While I feel non-Team members are more likely to be mining solely for profit, it would be a good balance between expansion of users and protection of the user base.   Additionally, Team Membership has marketing value long term and increasing our stats there will allow for us to place better in Challenges for increased PR as well as improve our overall ranking which can be used in a similar fashion.  The number of potential users that participate in BOINC, specifically World Community Grid, is huge and are likely in the top end of easiest to recruit.

Reduce the World Community Grid multiplier: reduce the multiplier to 1.25 from 1.5 RAC

The 1.5 multiplier is too lucrative, and makes Rosetta@home significantly less productive.  Shifting the multiplier would balance our work more so.

I am a proponent of PoDC.  I think the system could be solid with some  changes and aligns with the mission of the coin to help people.  The complexity of PoDC will always be moderately high in part due to the fact that there are not many PoDC-style coins and overall crypto universe is unfamiliar with it.  But the system has the potential to be stable long term while locking up funds and reducing market turnover.  Removing or significantly reducing it is in my eyes a disservice to our community.

BiblePay discussion / Re: Economical model thoughts and current state
« on: February 11, 2019, 04:51:31 pm »
I'm BBP supporter since almost the start of the project but I would not "invest" in BBP without being Christian and considering charity factor.
At the beginning I just took it like "fancy"  way howto support orphans, preach gospel via cryptocurrency project.  So here we are. 
I was buying most around ATH not much thinking about the project from investment PoV.
However I hoped that much more Christians world would grasp this idea.
I invested into this project something about 3 BTC when BTC was much more valuable  and tried to help the project from time to time.

Now BBP is dry. Hovering around price 4-6 sat. Funds of the initial investors (like me) are spent. It was pretty obvious during BBP spike yesterday. BBP up, BBP down to 4 sat.
I understand faith and things like that but how about finally admit that BBP was not based on sustainable principles but rather on denying them. I will list few issues:

1. Proof of (whatever) - why there is  so much effort around this, I can see no value added by constant changing consensus/reward algorithm but quite the opposite (confusion, new bugs, etc.). To me simple PoS would be the best. Mining times are over, maybe Bitcoin can keep it but I'm skeptical. BOINC is centralized and all other approaches seems awkward to me.
2. 10% - understanding support mission to orphans, but frankly this is not tithe because tithe is from profit. If you want to have model based on 10% from profit then build oracle, recalculate BBP to USD and if there is evaluation, then automatically cash 10% of that profit. Now it's more like pillaging the initial funds before we reach zero level. As this is not sustainable orphans will probably (unless God makes some miracle) not be helped in the future and investors will avoid this project.
3. Inflation/Deflation - BBP emission is higher than pace of adoption which necessarily leads to price crash. Again it would be nice to have self-adjusting emission model so that emission would adjust according to market price trend - probably connected to USD or at least BTC.
4. Misusing funds - in the past I've seen cases where thousands of dollars were approved for various non BBP or orphans-related activities (surprisingly to some slovak and other people)  without giving BBP or Jesus / Christianity any publicity.
5. Income side - BBP has no demand increasing utility

Simply summarized: I would rather like to see BBP as simplified PoS project supporting orphans from USD market value increase (we pay orphans with USD, don't we?)  and with strong demand increasing utility. Without that, I'm unable to see any long-term vision for BBP. Wake up! Now BBP is heading to it's crash. I believe Rob is a good guy but BBP really need some serious changes. God bless!

PoS brings some unique problems that most PoS coins will quietly admit.  The biggest is how forks are resolved.  With Proof of Work, you have an objective measure to determine longest chain, with Proof of Stake there are some questions about how to break ties and the like.  These sort of issues will be more pronounced on a smaller coin and we'll have fewer resources to tackle them.

BBP faces the same issue that 99% of coins face, questionable utility.  Since our price varies substantially (we're susceptible to both value changes relative to Bitcoin, i.e., our price in Satoshi, as well as the value of Bitcoin itself).  We can easily see a 10% variation in price in the span of a day or less, so utilizing BBP for fiat transfers is a hard sell.  The Research (PoDC) angle doesn't really add value or utility, but is in my eyes a potentially valuable marketing tool.  The support of Orphans isn't a use case for end users but again is a potentially valuable marketing aspect.   Increasing utility is a VERY hard task, IPFS was one potential but with our limited user base not one we could likely leverage (Siacoin is one player in the file storage arena and even they aren't doing very well despite their name recognition).   Integration with Walmart or Subway isn't a solid use case as we're not stable enough price wise to make that practical at this time.  There was a proposal for a deflationary emission schedule but the issue there becomes in a free-falling market, you're only limiting new supply which potentially makes it harder for new users and only really provides price stability on the short term (as at some point it's got to cap out too).

Hopefully this spring will bring an improvement to the crypto markets at large and since we're still surviving where other MN coins are not, it could provide us some advantages just by having longevity.  The short term though, to me, should strive for stability, no more big new systems in main net, no huge development projects when we're unable to pay for them.  Just make what we have work, work better, incremental gains and wait for the overall market to improve and bring us up with that.  To me, the most significant impact on price has been the combination of unstability/uncertainty: the latest change has required re installs and we're still not sure what will happen to PoDC since if it's a Masternode vote, it's believed that Rob controls (not necessarily owns but has the de facto proxy) for the majority of the typically voting Masternodes; and the other factor affecting price is the lack of buyers as it's my belief a few well heeled buyers have likely previously kept the price afloat which empirical evidence would suggest is no longer the case.

Archived Proposals / Re: Re-Enable Team BiblePay Requirement in PODC
« on: January 31, 2019, 01:17:44 pm »
Regardless of if the system lets this behavior occur or not, it goes against what the system says it should do.  So ultimately, a user that was honorable would have said, "hey Rob, this is not working as you intended it to".

I think the real solution is for PoDC payments to work like this:

PoDCUpdate looks and sees what you need for stake given your RAC
PoDCUpdate does a transaction going for 110% of the necessary stake
The Transaction becomes locked
The next time PoDCUpdate runs, it checks if the locked transaction exceeds the minimum required for your RAC, if so, no new transaction, if not, it does a new transaction

When the Payment is triggered, it ensures that all transactions for stake are still locked (much like with a MN payout).

Pre-Proposal Discussion / Re: Mass Adoption for BiblePay II
« on: January 02, 2019, 04:59:05 pm »
I still believe converting the Masternode rewards to a daily super block would 1) not be a radical change that would scare off current users 2) be beneficial for new users who would get quicker feedback on if they set things up correctly (as in theory, if we hit 1000 MN in the next two years, someone could wait almost a week before getting a reward and during that time could stress out if they had done things right) and 3) stabilize the rewards by removing chance (all MN would earn equal rewards that would be 1/# of MN of the total block versus the current system where rewards vary by as much as 15% between blocks due to DGW difficulty adjustments and the occasions where one MN gets rewarded in back-to-back blocks).

As the logic for a daily superblock is built and works, it would seem like you could maybe prototype that in reasonable time frame.

Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving
« on: January 02, 2019, 04:53:10 pm »
Would treating PoG like RAC be an issue?

So here's my thought.  Everyone participates in PoG and every tithe to the Foundation counts.  By contributing you get "RGC" - Recent Giving Credit.  Then a daily superblock pays out the PoG recipients like PoDC does.  So only one payment, less traffic since only one tithe a day would be necessary.

Then your tithe has a half life, and every day, is worth 50% (or some other target) of the previous day.

So, if the Team RGC is 10,000, then someone tithing 1000 would get 1000/10,0000 or 1/10th the daily reward.  The next day, that 1000 gift on Monday would still be worth 500 RCG points, and if the next day the team RCG was still 10K, they would get 1/20th the daily reward.

Granted, i still affirm working on simplifying PoDC is the optimal strategy, but I think something like this would simply the logic of PoG, reduce transactions and overall be better for the blockchain than what has been sketched out thus far.

Pre-Proposal Discussion / Re: Mass Adoption for BiblePay II
« on: December 08, 2018, 03:44:19 pm »

On #1 :

// Tithe Parameter Ranges:

// min_coin_age  : 0 - 60 (days)
// min_coin_amount : 1 - 25000
// max_tithe_amount: 300 - 1 (descending)

The exact formula for min_coin_age:

Given the Tithe_Cap (410987 per month in testnet), take the total 24 hour donations divided by tithe_cap:  donations / tithe_cap, arrive at a Percent_Donated.  Multiply that percent * ceiling(0,60) (in this case the 60) and add that to the floor (0).  So another words, 50% donations mean min_coin_age 30.

For the min_coin_amount do exactly the same thing as above (compute a donation % for the current time) and then multiply * 25000, giving you for example 12,500 if we had 50% donations.

For max_tithe_amount descending, do exactly the same thing as above (compute a donation %), except now subtract it from 300 as this one is descending.

Thanks for the quick reply!

Pre-Proposal Discussion / Re: Mass Adoption for BiblePay II
« on: December 08, 2018, 03:01:15 pm »
What is the formula for determining the three variables, Min_coin_age, Min_coin_amount and Max_tithe_amount?  I would like to better compute a few scenarios and exact-ish formula would be needed to do that.

Can an individual can tithe (can we please rename this to donate for our foreign users?) multiple times per day from the same wallet?  If so, does this tithe accumulate for the day, and for silly numbers, if they donated 10x 300 for 3000 and the rest of the users donated a cumulative total of 3000, would they then get half the reward?   How often is the difficulty calculated and is the monthly cap a rolling month or a 30 day fixed month?

Pre-Proposal Discussion / Re: Mass Adoption for BiblePay II
« on: December 06, 2018, 04:21:32 pm »
I'm not asking for credit, I don't brag about my contributions to the coin.  I'm not trying to goad you into an argument.   I acknowledge your skills and have consistently done so.  I have never asked to be a clone of any existing coin, if you misread that, then here is what I was saying.  It's far easier to bring an existing system into a coin than it is to code it from scratch and  vet all the possible scenarios that exist in the logic.

The questions I asked were in my view at times exposing short falls in the system.  I still see several loopholes (and have stated a few of them) and don't agree with your assessment that we will be able to sufficiently test a brand new system as I feel we'd need a ten or more fold increase in testers which would mean nearly half our active users would need to test.   The issue is you seem to believe we will see a sudden influx of both testers and users.  If you have knowledge of a contingency waiting to come, the community would benefit from that knowledge.  However, I don't see the path to such increases.  Finally, I stand by my position that even the best programmer won't be able to test for conditions they've not thought of.

Pre-Proposal Discussion / Re: Mass Adoption for BiblePay II
« on: December 06, 2018, 11:36:19 am »

Well in general this is good as the need for testing is critical, however we don't "lack the resources to adequately test it".

We need to put it in testnet, invite more than 8 testers (like 25), we need to cover every test case - and add every possible exploit.

To address the resource issue, it is possible to test it as what database programmers do (in the case of data management companies) is they write a stress test program and theoretically stress the system to exploit what conditions we think are missing - say for example we only have 10 testers, then we need to write a program to simulate the real life transactional activity of 250 users - then we would feel a lot better about it.

I think in addition to that we can phase this in two phases.  We go live with POG in POBH only then stay with it for a quarter and fix any critical issues before we attempt to transition from PODC to POG (during the second mandatory).

My issue is, and don't take as personal criticism, you've had multiple revisions on the system already.  And i feel that's been mostly been because of the loopholes I've found.  I still feel the current parameters are massively exploitable and will require a tremendous amount of work to circumvent that (and quite frankly, I think it's possible the only real solution to the exploits might require more centralization which many are not in favor of).

No matter how great a programmer you are (and you are a great programmer!) you won't be able to test situations you don't perceive.  So running a stress test will only show if the system could support 10,000 users behaving how you expect them to behave.  It won't be able to adequately test non-expected behaviors.  And I'm not even saying the ones TRYING to game the system, but if you have a lot of new users, they're going to do strange things due to ignorance.  And then you have an entirely different breed of non-expected behaviors from those playing within the rules and exploiting the system.  And finally, you have the edge case users, who actively exploit code to circumvent the system.  Something as novel as a new mechanism, not one we're plugging in from another coin, needs far more testing than we can give it at this time.

Pre-Proposal Discussion / Re: Mass Adoption for BiblePay II
« on: December 03, 2018, 11:38:25 am »
PoG if it were to be selected (which I really feel is the wish of the Dev) one issue I see is it would require a long test period as it's a very novel solution.  The issue is we don't have very many users, and very very few participate in the test net.  So my fear is there will be loopholes and bugs that we won't catch but someone will exploit.  And my real fear is there will be many such bugs (as it's a novel system and having eight or ten people test it won't expose nearly enough issues), which could mean a series of exploits (and disproportionate gains for the exploiters) followed by hot-fixes and unplanned mandatory releases which could put our markets off line.

In short, even if PoG is the next billion dollar idea, the BBP community lacks the resources to adequately test it.

If there is no benefit to Team BBP (which there is not now, since there is no bonus for members, or penalty for non-members), then the most practical thing is to join Team Byteball and get their 10% bonus and still get the same reward with BBP.

Pre-Proposal Discussion / Re: Add Proof-of-Giving
« on: November 25, 2018, 06:16:48 am »
The 15 minute window question:

Currently, but my understanding, for the first 15 minutes, the only miners that can solve a block are ones with Mag (i.e., PoDC miners).  After 15 minutes, that restriction is lifted and anyone can mine.  Additionally, a single miner currently cannot mine more than one out of a certain number of blocks (8 sticks in my mind but I don't have it handy in my notes).

Under this proposal, what if any mining restrictions are proposed.  I would think no restrictions would quickly put us in a similar position.  I one point it was suggested (during the tiers discussion which appears tiers are no longer part of the equation), that only members of a tier could mine without restriction.   Is the plan to retain some form of both restrictions (the class, i.e., PoG members only for some time and the frequency, i.e., a miner is only allowed to mine one of out every "x" blocks")?  That said, I would see value in both.  Additionally, I would see some merit in having the exclusive period being somehow related to the tithe_weight to reduce the impact of someone getting the entire exclusive mining window with a minimum tithe.

Pre-Proposal Discussion / Re: Add Proof-of-Giving
« on: November 24, 2018, 07:50:30 pm »
This is given as fuel to improve.  Not criticism.

Is the 1/410 random or deterministic? 

If it's deterministic, then it is far easier to game and I would say it should not be done.

If it's random, then if each block there is a 1/410 chance I will be selected (as a tither) then there is a 2.87% chance a tither could go a week without a reward.  That is going to put people off (meanwhile the same 2.87% chance a person will receive a reward seven day straight days).

Are only tithers going to be given the exclusive 15 minute mining window?  If not, then 20% of our coins could be again swamped by botnets.  I would think some exclusive period would be granted based on the tithe_weight.  That is, in your simplified example, Miners 401-500 would get the first 60 seconds exclusive, then 301-500 would get the next 60 seconds, until finally, 1-501 would all have exclusive rights in the fifth minute before opening it up to the non-tither's on minute six?  Those numbers could be modified but without an exclusive period (or if all miners get the same window regardless of tithe), then I see the botnet head rearing up again if the price improves.

Pre-Proposal Discussion / Re: Mass Adoption for BiblePay
« on: November 24, 2018, 06:19:24 pm »
My bottom line view is this.   Will changing increase our user base dramatically and be positive for the price in the moderate term?  I'll rate each of the scenarios independently in my view.

Most crypto users are somewhat computer savvy.  The entire crypto market is tough to explain to non-computer users, is somewhat frightening and is illogical to many.  Convincing Computer Jane to try crypto is far easier than than getting Joe Sixpack on board.  If we can make PoG, PoOM or IFPS one step simple, then we should be able to do that for PoDC just as well.  The fact we haven't been able to accomplish this for PoDC in the past six months gives me pause to think we'll have better results for any of the others.  I believe we're really only about two or three videos and maybe one or two re-writes away of having sufficient support documents that a competent computer user (not a nerd like myself) could follow along and PoDC.  I don't think any amount of documentation is sufficient to get the majority of people to try crypto.  The main issue I have with PoG is that there could (likely) be dramatic variability in the rewards from day to day which would put off a new user.  Even with equally well developed support documents, I see the pool of potential users to be gained by the technical gains as small and the price impact as commensurate.

Shifting to PoG/PoOM would likely benefit me personally, but it takes away an entire marketing arm (BOINC - research mining) and replaces it with an amplified Orphan/Charity support.  What users we'd be able to pick up due to this I question.  How many people have been telling themselves "I like this BBP coin, but 10-15% donation was too small, yet now 50% is enough for me to jump it".  I see the pool of potential users to be gained by marketing changes due to a change as neutral to negative, with minimal price impact.

In the end, there will be only a very small portion of users weigh in on this, and historically, unless there is near universal dissent, we follow the heart of our Developer.  Not saying that it is right, wrong or indifferent, but in the end, if our Developer wants it, that is what is going to be worked on...which has gotten us this far and will likely carry us down the road.  So ramp up it up in test net, let us try and break it, find as many issues as we can and make it as good as it can be.  But let's stop belaboring the issue.

Pre-Proposal Discussion / Re: Add Proof-of-Giving
« on: November 23, 2018, 09:16:51 pm »
Again, its a technically beautiful system.

Where is this sudden influx of users?  How are we to get them and why can we not get then now?

So far, the system has been hard to explain to us dedicated users.  I haven't seen a clear cut simple explanation nor summary of how this would work.

Finally, don't think I'm stuck on PoDC because I'm in it, it would be great to have a system that cost less to operate because the big operators could stand to save a bunch on electricity.  I think it's a great marketing tool (cancer research), great for humanity, but the biggest thing I see is the release of stake which I think would crush the markets.

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