Messages

1

Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving

« on: February 06, 2019, 08:46:19 pm »

Thanks Rob. 

How are the tax documents for charitable contributions accessed?

Could you give me an example of what you mean, for you personally, for our org as a whole, for what charity, and for what purpose is it for?

2

Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving

« on: February 05, 2019, 08:32:27 pm »

When do you think the POG will roll out?

Block 100,000 (tomorrow evening).

3

Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving

« on: February 01, 2019, 10:49:03 am »

We have reports of people setting up tithe=1 (early adopters) and they are donated ~200BBP every 4 hours to Orphan Foundation.

Accessing the wiki and including a note about not using tithe=1 until go live date will be useful. I'm planning to send out the newsletter tonight.

Yeah, Im going to do some personal tests now.  Finally upgraded my windows node.

We should basically confirm that anyone who Isnt auto tithing has no dimensional balance or an error in the debug.log.
And that others who do have a balance can auto tithe.

4

Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving

« on: January 31, 2019, 02:15:57 pm »

Rob that's totally up to you.

I think you revoked access for everyone for fear of spam/defacing.

I'm preparing a newsletter for you to review and wanted to make sure the PoG documentation (since this is the biggest change in the last 90 days) is correct and up to date.

I'll email you - thanks.

5

Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving

« on: January 30, 2019, 04:28:04 pm »

I'm not seeing this behavior myself. I started with a brand new install and new wallet.dat

On a separate note, would you mind revisiting your wiki docs and see if anything needs to be updated?

I think these are the two relevant links? A lot has changed since Nov 2018.

https://wiki.biblepay.org/Proof-of-Giving-for-Beginners

https://wiki.biblepay.org/Proof-of-Giving-II

I'm really behind as of today, Im about 3 days behind, I doubt I will be able to get to documentation and support in addition to programming and maintenance - thats why we need a good decentralized team at BBP to work on things together.

Is there something you need from me like access to allow you to edit or create new help docs? 

6

Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving

« on: January 29, 2019, 03:08:02 pm »

Hi.
Rob how to setup config in production?
I've set it with my nickname and tithe=1.
But tithes started to go (3 times ) even if POG is still not alive.
So, we should wait for block 100000 and then set tithe=1?

Whoops, ,  Sorry my friend, at least its going to a good cause.  So I guess that is the reason I didn't officially release it yet (I was trying to think if we thought of everything before announcing it officially LOL, and I guess we didnt).

Yes for now please keep tithe turned off by setting tithe=0 until we almost hit 100,000.

Let me take a look at this situation .

7

Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving

« on: January 29, 2019, 08:23:43 am »

I'm trying to see if PoG will reduce sell pressure on the exchanges or not?

So, with the upcoming PoG and the donated funds... the monthly superblock had BBP sent to a specific charity address if the proposal passed.

Are the funds donated to the Orphan Foundation via PoG going to Compassion like before?
So, the funds in the foundation will mean the monthly proposal will ask for less BBP because some exist in the Orphan Foundation?

100% of orphan fund donations go to compassion.com; and the exact amount will be logged in our Revenue records also so we can always reconcile.

As far as sell pressure, the original idea did have a problem I think, but the concept changed to have a Tithe Cap.  We only accept 50k in donations per day in POG, so the sell pressure should be low (1.5 MM deflating per month) in this phase.  In phase 2, it doesnt change much (2.5 MM per month).

But looking at the upside:  If we appeal to the masses the idea is there will be more buyers out there.

8

Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving

« on: January 25, 2019, 01:20:41 pm »

many mined blocks are 111 tBBP but others are more in the 4k tBBP. Is there a limit being reached such as tithe coming in or daily payout amount?

The 111 bbp blocks are reaper only payments (IE you found the heat mined block).
The 4K blocks means there was no sanctuary found in testnet to pay, so your node kept the entire payment.

9

Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving

« on: January 25, 2019, 01:19:51 pm »

I'm getting this error after I rebuild from scratch:

2019-01-25 19:08:31 ERROR: CheckIndexAgainstCheckpoint: forked chain older than last checkpoint (height 2079)
2019-01-25 19:08:31 ERROR: TestBlockValidity: CheckIndexAgainstCheckpoint():
2019-01-25 19:09:02 ERROR: CheckIndexAgainstCheckpoint: forked chain older than last checkpoint (height 2079)

That was fixed in 1184b (released about 4 hours after I released the last mandatory); please upgrade and then try again.

10

Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving

« on: January 25, 2019, 12:13:04 pm »

Great news, So far we have emitted 12 superblocks and none of them errored, so far things are looking pretty good.

I'll start checking over everything that has to do with old cpid rules and our current 51% attack preventer.

11

Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving

« on: January 24, 2019, 12:29:20 pm »

Yes it looks profitable compared to what I am tithing.

Thanks, yeah we should be seeing about 50% profit or so.  In Prod the first phase (with PODC still enabled) will be very similar because we have a tithe cap built in - so the foundation wont take in more than about 50K per day in donations (since we pay out about 90K in miner rewards) in phase 1. 

I think in Phase 2 we will probably take in about 2.5 MM per month in donations but pay out about 1 MM per day in POG mining rewards.  This is primarily to keep the foundation from crashing the market every month due to liquidation(s) for the (orphan sponsorships).

12

Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving

« on: January 24, 2019, 11:00:46 am »

So it appears a lot of us upgraded to 1184 and things appear to be working well.

What Im looking at is cat debug.log | grep invalid
To ensure that no POG superblock appears after the cutover height.
(On a side note, if you grep debug.log | grep Success you can see the progress we made in this version so far).

One thing  you can do to help me is at block 110702 (this is the next POG superblock) let us try to hose it up.
The critical thing to know is the wallet will pay everyone in the POG pool as of the state as of 10 blocks before that  (IE block 110692), so what we want to do, is around 110688 (IE before the diff changes), lets ensure we get some distinct tithes amounts in each block between 110687-110698, (just to ensure the state of the pool is changing on every block).  Then lets see if 110702 pays successfully.

This should exercise the rules to a high degree if we can make some wild fluctuating changes at this exact timeframe.


Also, Madmurphy do your daily payments look profitable as compared to your daily tithe expenses?

13

Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving

« on: January 24, 2019, 10:32:38 am »

Rob, are you sure about this?
Did you tried it anytime?
I've same experience as Sunk. When I've made zaptx-2 I've still lose coin-age.
That was my remark to change coin-age calculation, because after zaptx-2, number of confirmations was still correct, but coin-age was the same for all txs (same as time of zaptx-2).
Zaptx-1 didn't change coin-age for me, but zaptx-2 is different.

I do only speak things by experience, and never by guesses, and just to clarify, when I said you can only lose coin age by spending, I meant that since we measure coin age by :  Date of the block the coins were sent to you minus date the coins were spent by you, nothing you do to your internal wallet is going to change that fact.

However, I have been recommending *not* to use zap=2 (because I know what 1 does, it removes orphaned transactions and that is OK in our case).

What you are talking about is possibly that zap=2 is re-writing all of the wallets timestamps (note I didnt say block timestamps), so that the Get Dimensional Balance will fail to see how old they 'actually' are (another words our tithe *selector* wont let you tithe because you have incorrect wallet transaction timestamps).  If thats actually happening, then I recommend you go to your backups folder, and pull an old wallet.dat and restart the wallet with -rescan (IE this will pick up and add in wallet transactions that arent in the wallet).

Going forward, only use zapwallettxes=1. 

14

Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving

« on: January 23, 2019, 08:44:44 pm »

1.1.8.4 - Mandatory Upgrade for TestNet


- Fix bug in POG (testnet) payment algorithm
- Simplify PODC cutover height logic

15

Active Discussions / Re: Testnet - Test Proof of Giving

« on: January 23, 2019, 08:40:04 pm »

when zapwallettxes=1 doesn't work, I will sometimes do zapwallettxes=2

not related to biblepay, but I was able to recover lost funds using =2 on a different altcoin, so it has its place when a reindex fails.

Glad to hear 1183 was a dud because I was about to pull my hair out (what little I have left of it).

Let me try to explain what an orphaned wallet transaction is.
If you have a "?" in the wallet, it means you received the transaction, the chain reorganized and your txlist still displays it as a row in the transaction list.
zapwallettxes=1 removes those orphaned entries.  Those are the only relevant types of transactions we are dealing with here between mandatory upgrades (because people are on a fork between mandatory upgrades).

It looks like option =2 deletes the addressbook data.  Thats not a good idea as then you will lose your labels, and besides, the space in the wallet.dat file for labels is small.

Neither of those 2 recovery tools will make you lose coin-age.  You only lose coin-age when you spend the coins.

On the "dud" and pulling your hair out, I hope you aren't implying that these upgrades are causing you personal problems - because in reality we've done a lot in a short period of time and are almost finished in creating a new mining algorithm.  HAHA, I get it, you are joking!  LOL.