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 - aikida3k

Pages: [1]
Archived Proposals / Re: Biblepay Charity Commission and Sanctuaries
« on: March 14, 2018, 10:14:28 pm »
You'll disincentivize owning masternodes.  If someone is getting "free" masternodes from the charity portion in order to sell all the proceeds for charity, it dilutes the current masternode owners ownership and their returns.  As masternode owners we are having to hold bbp for price risk.  If we get diluted from free masternodes we lose our incentive to hold. 

My suggestion is people take their own proceeds and give them to their own charities as they will. 

Where did the poll go?  I don't see it to vote.

My greatest dream for this coin is that it actually BECOMES the charity. It doesn't just give to a charity.  It IS the charity.  It becomes an earthy extension of the GREAT I AM.  It funds itself to do work in the world.  It actually goes through and around the world proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, telling the story of the woman who poured her perfume over Jesus:

Matthew 26:13
Mark 14:9

          Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world,
          what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.

No one that I know of is doing this.
But you also have to realize, that if Biblepay is to BECOME the charity, it has to grow much larger in marketcap: to 100 Million or even 1 Billion or more.  In the process, if this is to happen, it will make many of you very wealthy.  But to get to that level, you have to be a good steward for the investors and take care of their funds so they are willing to keep buying and holding biblepay.

Do you have that vision?

Archived Proposals / Re: Biblepay Charity Commission and Sanctuaries
« on: March 14, 2018, 09:41:57 pm »
You'll disincentivize owning masternodes.  If someone is getting "free" masternodes from the charity portion in order to sell all the proceeds for charity, it dilutes the current masternode owners ownership and their returns.  As masternode owners we are having to hold bbp for price risk.  If we get diluted from free masternodes we lose our incentive to hold. 

My suggestion is people take their own proceeds and give them to their own charities as they will. 

Where did the poll go?  I don't see it to vote.

I voted I'm not sure because I'm not sure if Staking to RAC passes.  If staking to RAC passes, I will tell people about it at church. 

I have what I think is a good idea to spread awareness of biblepay in people who are not necessarily in cryptos.  I would like to combine the ideas of a paper wallet generator with the idea of a faucet.  What I would like, is to modify the paper wallet generator to be able to instantiate a number of biblepay private keys, say 1,000 private keys at a time and deposit 5 bbp in each private key.  It would be output in a file that would have each private key on a separate sheet of paper, so a file that is 1,000 pages in length.  Then I could go to a print shop and print out the addresses and hand them out to people after church. 

I would go to churches in the Dallas, Tyler and Longview areas and hand out free biblepay to get people interested in it if Stake based on RAC gets voted in.  I would have the confidence in telling people that they should be interested in it. 

I think printing out 1,000 or more addresses with 5 bbp deposited at a time wouldn't tempt distributors to be fraudulent in that it would be a really inefficient use of time to enter in 1,000 addresses to gain the amount of biblepay that one pre-PODC block had.  And if people don't use their private keys then those biblepay are as good as burned, which helps the coin anyway.

We would also need to include instructions on how to import private keys into wallets, and instructions how to find us online- say homepage, reddit and ANN.

Archived Proposals / Re: Poll for Type of Staking: MAG or RAC
« on: March 12, 2018, 04:22:21 pm »
I voted RAC but meant to vote MAG.

Here is why I think MAG is better.  Over time the RAC is going to be very high (my prediction is 20M RAC by the end of the year, if not sooner).  So if the decision is made to go on RAC it brings up the following conundrum.  Right now at 1.5M RAC, lets say we choose 10BBP/RAC.  While at 1.5M RAC, 10K RAC makes roughly 10K BBP/day.  So right now you'd need to stake (at 10/RAC) 100K BBP to make 10K per day.  The same machine at years end and 20M RAC would only make about 600BBP/day but still need a 100K stake.  So either the BBP/RAC is so low that people running thousands of dollars worth of VPS per month that there is no sacrifice needed to mine the coin, or it is at a reasonable number now but at years end will be entirely predatory to new users who have no real chance of making anywhere close to their stake in a year, let alone weeks.

Whearas going off MAG will be reasonably equitable.  The reward decreases over time (about 18%/year) and the RAC will likely be more evenly distributed (no one will likely have 10% by the end of the year). 

As far as the sub 1000 RAC, I think just saying an account with one ARM based is exempt is enough, otherwise people will divide their accounts and cheat the system.

The only other system I see is far more complex and would likely confuse users.  But the most fair system should be something like, you need 100x the BBP of your daily reward staked.  That sort of system scales well and is equitable.

I meant to select the option to allow you to change your vote.  It doesn't look like I can edit that now. We'll keep your intended vote for MAG in mind.

I am fine with a system that would allow for decreasing the stake required per RAC as the network grows.  The ultimate goals I have in mind are growing the aggregate amount staked with the growth of the network and thereby drawing in traders and investors- drawing in people who aren't as interested in crunching.  I think that is a much larger population that will get us price appreciation, and it is something we can do now instead of hoping and waiting we get on bigger exchanges. 

Archived Proposals / Re: Poll for Type of Staking: MAG or RAC
« on: March 11, 2018, 09:51:13 pm »
I'm thinking if the RAC is below 1000 you don't need to stake and limit it to Windows and Android machines and no Xeon processors.

I would agree with no need to stake below 1000 RAC.  Limiting OS and processors would require a lot of code and time I would think.

Archived Proposals / Poll for Type of Staking: MAG or RAC
« on: March 11, 2018, 09:22:35 pm »
This is in regards to the recent discussion on the Biblepay ANN thread.

Let's look at this a different way.  Let's say I go to Prestonwood Baptist church, and I say to people, "Hey why don't ya'll buy some biblepay that I'm mining.  It will help support orphans."  They might ask,"Are you buying it?" I'd have to say, "No, I'm just mining the pea-wodding out of it.  It has a limited supply, but so do the other 1550 and increasing other coins available."  They would feel like suckers being taken advantage of.

But! If we have stake based on RAC, and I say to people, "Hey why don't ya'll buy some biblepay that I'm mining.  It will help support orphans."  And they ask,"Are you buying it?"  I have to say, "Yes! For every computer I add that does crunching, I have to either hold or buy biblepay."  (With magnitude based staking, the amount I have to stake should decrease as the network grows: MAGSHARE=MAG/USERBASE as user base expands, my share of the MAG becomes smaller.)  Then they might say, "Oh, it sounds like a good idea if you are buying and holding right alongside me, even though I'm not that interested in crunching."  And I could say, "Yep, go for it!"

Honestly I think either will work, RAC or magnitude. I just like magnitude because it scales with the network size. But either or will do for me.

The simplest way I look at is, Do you want a static aggregate stake amount or a growing stake amount?  Unless I missed something Total MAG always is 1000.  So 1000*50000=50 million.  Always, even when supply is 3 Billion.  For RAC our current RAC is 1.3M So if we do 20 BBP per RAC that is 26 million lockup.  If we have a 10 million RAC with x larger supply that is a 200 million lockup.  Woo-hoo! We just engineered ourselves higher prices at a fraction of the cost of a masternode, important especially when masternodes become unaffordable.  It is important to consistently seek some way to keep mopping up supply.  This coin has a lot of supply on the front end.  It will take time for the supply to consolidate.  If bitcoin goes way up, we will still have a high effusion rate, people won't be able to afford to buy as much biblepay.  If we keep growing the stake amount with the RAC of the network, we do something to give buyers confidence that the coin won't collapse.  Buyers are the ones who truly support the orphans, not miners and crunchers.

Even when the exchanges are out of maintenance, take some time to read the tape when the prices suddenly go up.  Prices go up by surprise because liquidity dried up and people are willing to pay higher and higher prices.  They take out those standing limit offers.  Then the miners start to come in when they realize prices just got higher.  At first, they put out limits on the offer.  When those stop getting hit, they start to get desperate and start hitting the bid, soaking up liquidity the other way.  Then prices come back down.  It would help to have a consistent way to soak up supply and we would engineer higher prices much in the way companies buy back their own stock.  Miners are part of the company.  Miners accumulating bbp as the network grows helps prices to appreciate.

For reference the current masternode lockup has 262 million bpp.  And since the start of masternodes we are consistently 20 or more satoshi higher.  So more lockup should mean higher prices, and more orphans supported.  A win for everybody.

Staking per MAG keeps the race to the bottom in.  Right now a rational player will introduce as many computers to crunch as capital will allow because breakevens are so high.  Therefore introduce as many computers as capital allows until your breakeven is reached.  Sell your biblepay on the market.  In the process biblepay has no natural buyers, only natural sellers- the miners and the crunchers.  Buyers, not miners are the ones who are really supporting the orphans.  Miners and crunchers introduce supply while buyers sop up supply.  It works the same way in all commodities:  If the price of oil is above your expected breakeven, you go out and explore for more oil until you reach your breakevens.  In the process you introduce more supply on the market which eventually makes prices come down again.  If you are a cattle rancher and prices are above your breakeven, you increase your herd size and your production until you reach your breakevens.  Selling your calves on the market with greater supply eventually brings prices back down.  The difference between BBP and oil and cattle?  There are natural buyers:  people have to buy oil to make gasoline and diesel.  People have to buy fat cattle to make beef.  People don't have to keep buying BBP once the static stake amount to magnitude is reached, however, staking to RAC, miners then become natural buyers as they seek to increase the amount of BBP they can generate.  Traders and investors see this and are encouraged and buy. 

We don't do enough to encourage buyers.  Staking to RAC would help that.

50000 still becomes a static 50 million lockup.  For comparison we have 169 masternodes which gives a lockup of nearly 262 million.  Right now total supply is 459 million.  So that lockup of 262 million increased price from a consistent 10-20 satoshi to a consistent 25-35 satoshi with some higher peaks.  I like staking to RAC because it will sop up supply, and it should still be affordable if bitcoin takes off whereas masternodes will become unaffordable while we still have a lot of supply to come.  I can imagine a scenario where the annual returns are attractive on masternodes, but the price because of bitcoin makes them expensive and out of reach for most people, but they could still afford to either buy and hold, or buy, stake and crunch. 

The way mining and crunching is right now is a race to the bottom:  Anyone will add computers to the point of becoming even with breakevens.  Adding computers adds expenses to the miner and adds to the amount that they must sell, thus lowering prices.  Staking per MAG has only a fractional lockup compared to sanctuaries, it won't make much of a price difference.  Staking based on RAC introduces a VIRTUOUS cycle and cures the race to the bottom.  Increasing network size has to be met with increasing stake.  Increasing stake amount should lead to increasing prices.  Increasing prices leads to higher breakevens.  Higher breakevens lead to a growing network.  A growing network leads to increasing stakes, which leads to higher prices....  A virtuous cycle.

I think the issue with staking via RAC is imagine a year from now when we have 49M RAC on Team Biblepay.  Yes, the circulation will have grown substantially by then, but the daily rewards will be about 80% of what they are now.  So today, 70K RAC is 63 Mag granting 90K coins a day (roughly under the corrected distribution), whereas in the above it is 1.5 Mag granting (roughly) 1800 coins a day.  Having to stake 10 BBP/RAC would be 700K BBP which today is probably reasonable, but a year from now, quite the impediment to the low power crowd.

In the end I see the stake/Mag being optimal, I would even say it should be higher to level the playing field which is I think the goal as much as anti-bots and coin stability.

I like another idea.  I like the idea of decreasing the amount of stake per RAC with the lower distribution.  A nice benefit of staking per RAC is that the amount staked based on RAC will keep growing instead of being static at say 10 million.  The benefit of a growing stake is that it would bring in a new element to the coin - traders, people not necessarily looking to crunch or mine and instead hold for appreciation.  A drawback of the coin now is that it is full of miners and crunchers-- miners and crunchers are natural sellers.  They have expenses to cover.  This coin needs a way to bring in buyers, people who just want to own the coin without having to crunch or mine.  Staking based on RAC would help to do that because traders could come in to "front run" the growth in the network.  So then buying and holding BBP becomes a bet that the network will grow and the coin will appreciate based on an increasing amount staked.  Staking based on RAC gives the coin more value:  you need to get BBP in order to increase the number of computers you are using to crunch.  With staking based on MAG, the amount required to stake per user will shrink as the network grows even though the amount staked will stay static at say 10 million.  Staking per MAG doesn't give us a consistent supply sponge, whereas staking per RAC will sop up supply and drive price higher.  Staking per MAG gives us a 10M lockup which is a fraction of the amount locked up by sanctuaries.

I don't have time to chase down why my RAC and Magnitude are zero.  How long does it take for these to ramp up?  It took somewhere around a day for the VPS to show under the "Your Computers" page.  Anyway, thanks for any help or input.   

"Command": "getboincinfo",
  "CPID": "84d803e4d82d3bdcdf8e2ab601e93e20",
  "Address": "yeqg7xVzYKimDfk5r7FavzWum4XMcJ1AoZ",
  "CPIDS": "84d803e4d82d3bdcdf8e2ab601e93e20;",
  "CPID-Age (hours)": 421828,
  "NextSuperblockHeight": 9603,
  "84d803e4d82d3bdcdf8e2ab601e93e20_RAC": 0,
  "Total Payments (One Day)": 0,
  "Total Payments (One Week)": 0,
  "Total Budget (One Day)": 2730420,
  "Total Budget (One Week)": 52335360,
  "Superblock Count (One Week)": 70,
  "Superblock Hit Count (One Week)": 39,
  "Superblock List": "9108,8613,8217,8118,8019,7821,7425,7326,7128,7029,6831,6733168,3069,2772,2673",
  "Last Superblock Budget": 1386000,
  "Last Superblock Height": 9504,
  "Last Superblock Payment": -1,
  "Magnitude": 0

"Successfully advertised DC-Key"  Cool.  Thanks, Togo!

Okay, I am trying to associate my testnet BBP wallet with my Rosetta account.  If someone would send some tBBP, that would be great.  Address


First off, I'm not entirely sure if the 2.5% PR Budget has been finalized or not.  It could very well be there is a 10% generic expense budget. The stated 2018 emissions are roughly 800M, so 2.5% of that, in round numbers is 20M BBP, which at 20 satoshi (.000 000 20) means a 2.5% PR budget would end up with 4.08 BTC in 2018, far less than the 825 days quoted above.

Two: Minting and selling 16.5M BBP would at this moment, exceed the entire buy orders on C-Cex and destroy the market.  Right now there are only .7 BTC worth of buy orders on C-Cex (for a total of 8.6M BBP).  So the only way to realistically make that work is by either selling the special minted block directly to someone who would be essentially overpaying by 300%.  In that case we'd be just as well off telling that individual to crash the market and donate the BTC to get us listed.  The people that would benefit the most from that would be those putting in buy orders at 1 satoshi to get a huge quantity of coins for cheap with the hopes that the listing on the bigger exchanges would boost the coin back in the moderate term.

Really, doing it slowly is the only real option without risking destroying the market and potentially shaking user confidence unless enough people want to donate to do it right away.

Again, getting listed on a big exchange would almost certainly be great for the coin, but minting a special block won't actually get the job done.

I went back and checked my numbers.  I based the 800,000 daily effusion rate based on checking the daily effusion rate from memory.  From memory, it seemed to increase about 1,000,000 or so each time I checked it.  So taking that 1,000,000 and taking 80% of that, I arrived at the 800,000 figure.  What I didn't account for, was checking the effusion rate 2x per day.  So looking back from the inception to today, we have approximately 141 days 7/23-12/11 with a total effusion of 279,534,159 which actually works out to an average daily effusion of 1,982,512.  Then I looked back at my notes, from 10/25 to 12/11 is 47 days with a change in coins of 110,161,108 for an average daily effusion of 2,343,853.  If we take the midpoint of block rewards as (20,000+5,000)/2 is 12,500 and with 205 blocks per day, I arrive at an implied daily effusion rate of 2,562,500.  Nevertheless, if we just assume 2,000,000 daily effusion rate and decreasing by approximately  20% we get 1,600,000, which is 2x the rate I had figured in before.  That would cut the time to pay for it in half.  If we do meet the 800M effusion rate in the schedule, that does imply a daily effusion rate of 2,191,780  which is higher than the rate since inception but 93% of the effusion rate since October 25.

If we do 800,000 daily effusion rate starting in 2018, for the 2.5% PR budget, at 20 satoshi that implies 800,000*.025*.00000020=.004 BTC per day.   3.3 BTC/ .004 BTC per day at 20 satoshi implies 825 days to pay for listing through the PR budget.  If we go ahead and do the mint from the total amount of coins that will ever be minted, there is a better chance we will appreciate over 20 satoshi, imo.  If we want to be listed on 2 of the top 10 bitcoin exchanges, then we should go ahead and do the mint.

Pages: [1]