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 ... 15
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.

Pre-Proposal Discussion / Re: Add Proof-of-Giving
« on: November 23, 2018, 11:01:01 am »
Not sure what you mean about Sun's concerns of 5 years ago,   But a big concern would be the mechanism can be simply stated as "you donate and are rewarded", but the ROI would be wildly variable and we've seen how reasonably savvy users have had trouble understanding the PoDC staking tiers, this seems more complex than that.

This system while technically elegant, would require a myriad of safeguards to prevent gaming in practice, and that would add more complexity.

I think we're far better off improving the PoDC documentation, considering a team membership bonus and trying to improve that then spending time, energy and resources trying to develop something new.

Pre-Proposal Discussion / Re: Add Proof-of-Giving
« on: November 23, 2018, 08:43:29 am »
My primary concerns are:

A shift from PoDC and staking could potentially flood the market with roughly 200M BBP.  Our monthly average volume in coins over the last month was 44M BBP.  Our one year average monthly volume is 65M.  If too much of this went to market it would crash the price and I fear we would not recover.  If most of it went into Sanctuaries that would dramatically decrease our ROI.

It's logical to think that in the moderate term, PoG could account for 40M BBP a month (iRob's estimate of monthly tithes which I see as reasonable).  This is funding that most likely will hit the markets more or less immediately.  Again, even looking long term, this would account for a majority of the traditional average monthly volume.  A near doubling of coins heading to market would likely crash the market and again, I fear if we drop to 1 sat we won't recover.

Finally, I'll revisit my technical concerns. 

I feel the system cannot be made to resist gaming under the current parameters.  Having one daily assignment of brackets (Tranches) would mitigate some of this, as a player could not continue to shift the brackets through the day.  However, this would introduce a new gaming strategy in which a well heeled player could run multiple accounts, make a massive bid on one of them (to ensure T15 status), quite possibly at a loss, then run four to ten other accounts to get solo positioning on the lower T's for a net gain.

I feel the system would to be hard for new users.  Right now, I can say with reasonable accuracy, if you PoDC, stake 100% (which would cost "x" BBP), you'll get about "y" reward a day.  Since the team RAC doesn't typically jump around by 20% or more a day, that becomes one less major variable for a new user.  However with this proposed system, one day a tithe of 400 BBP will earn you 700 BBP, and the next day it might earn you only 250 BBP (a loss).   That's going to be difficult to calculate a return on over time and would likely discourage a new user from beginning.

In conclusion, despite my feeling we gave up on PoDC when we eliminated the Team requirement and competitors blacklist, I still think it's the best system we've got given where we are at. If we were starting a new coin, I'd be more interested to see what PoG could accomplish (which is similar to one of my favorite systems to research, Proof of Burn even though the two are different animals).  But for our current position, a dramatic change of this nature could very well kill the markets and I'm not seeing a clear path to a horde of new users (and if that path exists, I don't see PoG making it more or less possible than PoDC).

Pre-Proposal Discussion / Re: Add Proof-of-Giving
« on: November 22, 2018, 10:40:06 am »
My concern about gaming is two fold.  One, I'm pretty that a tactical player could constantly jump around the T15 value and skew the mid range values to their benefit (running multiple wallets).  But for now, I'll leave that alone and concentrate on the bigger issue I see.  There is a psychological puzzle called, "The Dollar Game".  It revolves around the "sunk cost" fallacy.  In essence, logic will dictate that many Tranches (I'll call them "T's") will end up unprofitable.  And then most users will end up just giving the minimum to have a chance to mine in T0.  And then the other T's will fill up to get a positive gain.

I also don't see where we can get 2000 new users from.  Or put another way, how do we get these new users and why cannot we get them now?  The issue is on the short term the monthly addition of nearly 40M coins (your estimate which I think is fair and reasonable), plus the normal Orphan funding would equal our average monthly volume (in raw coins).  So unless we got these new users quickly, the system would crash as supply would far outstrip historical demand.  And normal PoG users will be self funding and not require an infusion of new coins.  So yes, if we could have a 10 fold increase in users (we have roughly 200 PoDC users now) that should have a positive impact on price.

Don't get me wrong, it's a near genius system from a computer science standpoint!  But I don't see a clear positive impact from it in terms of users (it's still pretty complex for a beginner) nor price (it doesn't really add a use case).

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15