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 ... 13
I guess team Gridcoin, Byteball and Neumannium Labs would be the ones I see right off the bat.  Right now the BOINC percentage that is winning is 100%, which I think is entirely counter-productive.  Even though I'm very much against removing the team requirement, I do think that if we do, 90% of the reward to non-team members is enough to give an incentive for people to join our team but not penalize people too much for keeping with their old team.  That being said, even 100% reward is unlikely to trigger in my mind more than a 2-4M coin surge in demand, followed by a routine surge in supply as non-interested miners sell off the coin as they earn them.

So how do you respond in love to a disrespectful person like the snat?  Do you see that he doesnt deserve the answers?  These are not loving questions, they are attacks from a disrespectful person.

What do you mean that a miner who mined for a sanc has less voting power than an investor?  Hogwash.  I mined this coin with more than 35 servers and bought sancs on the open market.  Yes, they are both valuable for voting.

Again, you don't know that the supermajority is voting no, because you don't have an accurate vote count from me (which I established earlier).  You are now believing your lies, and I have the credibility here - Sorry, but you lost your credibility with your corrosive attitude, disrespect, and inaccurate hacking attempts.  Its not your business which masternode keys you made a mistake on, but its definitely true that more than a N number exist that I set up that are voting that appear to come from my account but arent really my sancs...  So knowing that you made an error, why dont you come clean and tell everyone the truth, that you are publicizing a lie?

(LOL, without naming names, I set a couple up for one of our directors, some for a person that is actually in this thread, and I helped someone via e-mail with a certain number, a lot has gone through my wallet, therefore you don't really know out of my N sancs how many are voting right now, you dont know.  You might be off by quite a large number !)

From the looks of the poll here, it looks like the non-Biblepay team miners want this to pass also.

The main issue I think that exists is the Sancs in question all tend to vote at the same time.  So Occam's razor would say one entity controls them all.  While it is certainly possible you run sanc's for other users (and good for you because some people have difficulty or lack of time to figure it out) and it is possible you either 1) asked them how they want to vote and they all said "yes" or 2) more likely told you to vote their sanc's with yours, the result is still the same.  It appears from normal block-chain analysis (and not any black-hat hacker activity) that you control the super majority of normally voting sancs.

I'm not asking personally how many you own, and it is your right to keep that private.  But as the lead dev of the coin, that sort of transparency would build trust in the greater crypto community.
While you are certainly within your rights to use your sanc's (and any sanc's the owners have given de facto proxy to you) how you see fit regardless of if they were bought or earned, the question of how many sanc's you control is certainly a valid one for most users.  Because in the end, if you control a supermajority, there are questions of if we have true governance.  That is not to say that anyone with the resources to buy up BBP (and now seems to be a great time) couldn't exceed what you are believed to control.  Nor is to say you haven't earned the right to call some shots.  But until the Foundation is up and running, it seems like going over and above to preserve trust would have more of a impact on the price of the coin and it's future than any feature that could be added.

In closing, the request of some in the community, and one you're free to choose what to do with, is to reduce the voting of the sanc's you control to a level where you can not pass or fail any proposal on your own.  One simple formula would be to vote with a number no more than 10% of the total sanc's, which would reduce any perceived control you have over the governance system. 

Regardless of what direction you go, know that most of the community still trusts you and are thankful for how far you've gotten this coin in such a short time.


Pre-Prosposal: Daily Sanctuary Reward Superblock to replace block-by-block Sanctuary reward

Remove the block reward and Sanctuary payment queue system.  Replace with a daily Sanctuary Superblock, offset by 100 blocks from the PoDC Superblock.  The Sanctuary Superblock would pay all Sanctuaries that were active, detemined via consensus system similar to PoDCs.  The block payment would be equal to the PoDC Superblock, and divided evenly among all eligible Sanctuaries.  This would give immediate feedback to new users as to if they were configured correctly as opposed to the potential of having to wait days if the Sanctuary count got up to 750.

Benefits :
Easier for users to understand
Easier to predict rewards and ROI vs block system which is affected by DGW
Easier for users to determine if they were set up correctly (if they aren't in the reward block, they have an issue)
Eliminates back-to-back payments that occur in the queue system where the network pays the same Sanctuary back-to-back blocks
Positions BBP in a unique way

Unique solution would require new code as it would be breaking from the DASH model although the lessons learned from the PoDC Superblock might reduce issues.

Discussions?  Questions?  Anything I've overlooked or need to better explain?

BBP-Pool is written by the same individual who wrote the GRC-Pool.  So any code he reused would be his to do so.

While I am still hopeful the main proposal does not pass, I do think if it does we should give it as great a chance to succeed as possible.  That said, I don't think it benefits us as much to have non Team BBP members mining as my belief is they only provide a short term boost as a majority will buy to stake, then sell off the excess earnings.  So I do think we need some benefit for being on Team BBP, and think 90% feels about right.

TLDR: I fell it's unlikely we'd gain more than 1.5M Team RAC at the most wildly generous numbers.  This would, if fully staked, add only 30M BBP demand for the coin, which is roughly 1 month of average volume/15 days of newly minted coins.

So, here is my logic on why removing the Team Requirement is not going to help.

First off, as a holder and big PoDC miner of BBP, there are two conflicting thoughts that present before considering the actual primary issue. The first is if the BBP Team Requirement (which I'll save some typing and call BBP-TR) is removed, but we also ban other coin teams (basically Gridcoin and Byteball) then one of two things could happen. One, nothing.  Two, we could spike our RAC.  A spike in Team RAC would make mining unprofitable for most if not all current users unless you had some unique advantage such as dirt cheap power.  So the current miners, like myself would drop out.  So we'd need a HUGE spike to offset this. If we did see a huge spike in RAC and that corresponded to a similar long-term increase in price, then as a big holder, I should welcome this. Sure I wouldn't be mining anymore but, in silly terms, if price went up 100x because the RAC went up 200x, then I'm coming out great!

The issue is this. Look at Byteball. There is no team requirement, in fact wasn't even a Byteball Team for the longest time, and the benefit for being on the team is still small. I'm currently receiving the 11th largest daily distribution at Byteball. Five of the users receiving more are on Team BBP. Three of the users receiving more are the three GRC-pool accounts (which I'm wagering found out about it because of BBP, since BBP-pool is below me). So, in short, I can only account for two users getting more Byteball than me.  But I've got little clue about the coin despite the fact I'm in the top 11.  I'd wager the rest of the other BBP users don't know much about it either and are either 1) cashing out when they mine or 2) hoping for a price increase since this is basically "free" coins. 

So the question becomes,  where are all the team members from Hard[OCP], US Navy, Oracle, Overclock Forums, etc?  Why are they not participating in Byteball? I don't see them in any large numbers (at least in coins rewarded, since again, I've got most the top 10 covered and the top 10 is about half the reward),  Byteball is incredibly easy to set up. It's trivial enough I think my beginner computer friends could get linked to Byteball following the instructions. However, none of them would be able to figure out our coin without help, and then the issue of buying crytpo to stake, would end that discussion. So I don't think (if we block Team Gridcoin and Team Byteball) we'll see many new users from this, since the most crypto savvy ones are going to be blocked. And the rest of the teams, as evidenced by their non-participation in Byteball, which has far less complexity, are not interested.  Or maybe because in part, most of the big teams, don't do much CPU BOINC.

But that thought aside, let's look at some very hard numbers.  If we could get a 1% conversion rate, that is, by removing the BBP-TR, we would get 1% of the overall user base to become BBP users and fully stake their mining, what would that really mean?  (and for the record I think 1% is way too high).  At R@h, we're anywhere between 15-20% of the daily work done, Gridcoin is usually about 10%.  Yesterday the two teams combined accounted for roughly 29% of the work at R@h.  So if we got 1% of the remaining 71% that would be 225K RAC.  At World Community Grid, we're about 3%, Gridcoin is about 4.6% and Byteball is about .5%.  So between all three projects we're basically 8% of the total.  Again, if we could get 1% of the remaining 92% that's about 1.2M RAC.  Even rounding up we're looking at, again in my opinion of the best case, roughly 1.5M RAC added to our team.  That would create demand for 30M BBP to stake, which is roughly 1 month of our average volume, or about 15 days worth of newly minted coins.   How would that affect us?  Who knows, but probably not by more than a few satoshi of value in the medium term.

In the end, the market is poor all around.  We've overextended our support of orphans given the fall in price.  Removing the BBP-TR is removing one of the potential major marketing points of the coin, the hard and fast numbers of how many people we've added to the cause of scientific research.  How many we can lay exclusive claim to for being on BOINC.  We're the number 3 team ALL TIME at Rosetta@home, set to be number two by mid-October.  And number one in RAC there.  We're number 89 all time at World Community Grid and should break into the top 50 by the end of the year, all while being the fifth highest there in RAC.  Giving up that potential marketing angle for what I suspect will be a pittance of users seems not worth the effort.  And using that programming time (however small) seems to be a poor use of resources in an increasingly lean time.

I think the problem is the BBP users that are power mining are the least likely to care less about the stats.  So they are the ones more likely to cheat the system, and they also have the most to gain, they are also the ones most likely to jump to GRC to improve their ROI (they'll have the time and incentive to figure it out) by double dipping if the Team Requirement is eliminated.

So if user BBP (and I'm not trying to sully this user and claim they would do this with 100% certainty) broke up their fleet of machines into 300 separate users, they then could field roughly 18 new Sanctuaries, which would be a very positive increase in ROI and certainly worth the hassle.  Or worse, suddenly have 28M BBP for sale, and destroy the current price wall.

Basically, anyone with enough incentive to cheat the system is going to be very tempted.  And if 8 of the top 10 suddenly starts breaking things up to stay under the cap, then the bulk of the staked BBP will be free to flow into either Sanctuaries (reducing their yield for everyone else) or to the market (putting even more downward pressure on the price).

In the end, the issue is, and again, I point to Byteball, I'd wager any BBP person doing Byteball at WCG is not following their development nor do they (with very few exceptions) care about that coin, other than it would be nicer if it was higher priced so they could make more when they sell.  But I'll wager none of our team has bought any sizable quantity of Byteball due to their introduction to it (so they've not become added value investors) and more likely than not are selling putting downward pressure on that coin.  My fear is opening the team requirement will only serve to add profit takers to our ranks, and revamping the staking is not as necessary as it once might have been due to BBPPool.

Archived Proposals / Re: Proposal - listing BBP on GIN MN platform
« on: August 29, 2018, 06:42:08 pm »
I understand that BBP price and budget is tight but BBP needs to be expanding and be visible to various platforms to keep pace. To be on GIN is imho more significant than be listed on CoinExchange.IO which is just another (not very significant) exchange. BBP doesn't need to be on more small exchanges but there should be complete ecosystem around BBP in terms of various services and uses cases. It means:

1) small exchanges(5) : SouthXchange, C-CEX, CryptoBridge, CoinExchange, QIEX
- DONE (not one of them is in TOP100 exchanges), no need to invest in this area even single BBP in the future imho
2) MN hosting platforms(0): this is where GIN goes (and you can already vote for it)
3) Alt P2P / escrow platforms(0): this is where MCT+ goes (you can also already vote for it)
4) payment processor(0): like bitpay, coinbase, etc. (beyond BBP size budget right now)
5) big exchanges(0): like bitfinex, binance (TOP10 exchanges - that's beyond BBP size and budget right now)

You see, BBP has 5 small exchanges but nothing else from this list. That's why I believe we need to leave any effort to list another small exchanges but to focus on other types of platforms where BBP is yet missing. Big exchanges and payment processors are currently beyond BBP budget. What we can do now is to make BBP present on MN hosting platform (like GIN) and P2P escrow trading alt platform (like MCT+) for decent money. That would mean to have 3 of 5 ecosystem groups covered plus bringing additional exposure and PR to BBP.

Whoever wants to build special BBP hosting platform, feel free to do it but it imho doesn't substitute being listed on GIN. It would be similar effort like to build your own exchange and thinking that is the same like to be listed on Binance. It's not.

I generally agree with your assessments, although I would say we've not seen much request for MN hosting or P2P escrow.  I'm pretty sure that anyone wanting to start a MN that has issues would not be more helped by something like Gin than the community.  P2P escrow I've never understood the need for when you have reliable markets...for coins that have no markets, yes, but to me P2P escrow is not a high priority.

I firmly agree we don't need any more exchanges at this point, unless we can luck into a top 25 one.  But to me, Gin is not providing a service that our users are clamoring for, MCT+ is not providing a service that is needed if we have reliable markets, and given the budget at this point, either proposal amounts to very expensive advertising.

Let's break this up into pieces.

No Staking for Mag < 1:  Right now that our RAC is 7,566,293 (that is effective RAC, since some RAC is not staked at 100%).  Our real RAC is 3,792,636 WCG and 5,609,297 R@h for an total of 11,298,251.  I'm going to use the secondary figure as if we're trying to boost our users we should get there pretty fast.  That means right now 1 MAG = 11,300 RAC.  That is a pretty smoking home system or a weak two processor Xeon server.  I don't believe it's fair to say that someone that has a Threadrippper or a Dual-Processor Server is suddenly going to start mining BBP because they can do it without staking.   Additionally, if we did double the number of miners, you'd get to the point where a high end server no longer needs staking.  There are alternatives, people can PoDC without stake at  The Airdrop will enable most average home users to PoDC at near 100% without changing the system.   Additionally given the cheating that occurred with likely botnets, and the ease at which one could run multiple instances on a single server, this effectively means anyone with the technical skill and the desire to get ahead will not have to stake.  That staking will then flow into Sanctuaries or flood the market, both of which hurt the coin (decreasing ROI for Sanctuaries or increased downward price pressure).

Team Removal:  Right now our Team Stats are incredible.  That we've not been able to capitalize on that is a shame, although I'm as clueless as anyone why that is.  So if we remove our team requirement then nearly every power user will migrate to GRC and double dip with BBP.  The same way some of us are double dipping with Byteball.  I can say with 100% certainty, me personally double dipping with Byteball has done very little for them, short of the fact I've shared it several times with others.  So I'm actually taking away from the return of people that legitimately support the coin.  The only way this is somewhat beneficial is if the Staking requirements stay the same.  Then we likely gain a few new users from GRC who buy BBP to Stake with, providing a temporary boost in price.  But I doubt we gain any more than we are with the Airdrop (as right now, BBP is approximately 10x more profitable to mine than GRC on R@h and WCG).  There are more than 1000 users at GRC that have competency with crypto and a RAC of less than 10K. So without staking, we could see a large number of new miners, spiking our RAC, reducing the returns for current users and having dubious conversion rates.

Free CPID: Not a bad idea, not likely to be spammed as 1 BBP is not worth much even in aggregate.  The question becomes can you CPID with less than 1 BBP?  If so, how much less?  If so, then that should be the amount for free.

CPID in last superblock:  I thought this had already been reworked to be RAC in the last week?

Investors:  Right now I'm not sure what the difficulty is getting new users that are purely investors (i.e., not miners).  I suppose the lack of utility is one thing.  We're competing in a very crowded market, a very bear market crypto wise.  The main thing we currently offer the average user is the charity aspect, but the charity is emission based, so the average investor is not actually contributing to the core mission of the coin.  I'm also unclear on how the possible DAHF will benefit coin holders if one could participate in the hedge fund without holding BBP (and if you have to have BBP to participate, then that brings us closer to a security which is not ideal).

To summarize:
No staking: Against, too easy to cheat
No Team BBP: Against, lose our marketing edge, questionable conversion rate, detrimental to current users
Free CPID: For, if it can be done in a manner to prevent abuse
CPID not in Superblock:  Confused, thought you could PoBH if you had a Mag in the last 7 days
Investors: A mystery.  They're not jumping in now (when our price is near record lows), what do they want other than ROI?

Archived Proposals / Re: Proposal - listing BBP on GIN MN platform
« on: August 27, 2018, 12:12:39 pm »
I'm not disagreeing with anything...just some more thoughts.

Gin has a huge platform but really half their traffic it their own coin and a few other fairly cheap coins.   So, right now we've got 309 MN (they have close to 2000).   But they certainly have utility built into their token.  And the shared MN idea is a good one, but not implemented yet.

I've said time and time again, I'll help anyone set up a MN, I've helped 3 other people so far.  Right now there are enough people willing to help that, again to me, spending on a service that is likely to only be used by a few MN isn't worth it at this point.

But to continue the thought, how do we do something (even if it's not just hosting our own MN as a service) to improve the utility of our coin?

Archived Proposals / Re: Proposal - listing BBP on GIN MN platform
« on: August 26, 2018, 04:47:42 pm »
Glad to hear the issue was fixed!

What if we started a similar service but exclusively for BBP?  What would that cost us?  The issue would be coding a front end (as a person who manually runs a pooled Sanctuary, I can tell you that is the one thing that takes much time).  But it would give us 1) room to expand to other masternode coins hosted (since you can run four to seven normal MN coins on one $5 server...or less expensive options are out there too).

Coders, how hard would this be?   Because I can say with 100% certainty, that for $14/month/sanctuary I'd be all for running this system for us, in fact would be all for running it for less cost for users!  Maintaining multiple sanctuaries is pretty trivial after the first one, much of the updates can be semi automated (command driven).  Being able to do this for our own coin would give us room to grow for other alt-coins and be something that would be outside the core mission of the coin but complementary like BBPPool is. 


A trading bot in my opinion would only fake volume.  And if it were exposed it would be a 180 turn from the Christian values the coin strives for.

While I'm sure there are bots out there that are faking volume for other coins, this is not the correct path for Biblepay.

The issue with volume and price are

1)overall market is down
2) uncertainty about our legitimacy (quite frankly even if the BCT Mods are biased against religion, if we cannot on some level convince them, we're going to be hard pressed to convince the average users)
3) PoDC and Sanctuaries lock a huge portion of the coins up, with the down turn in price there's not much (if any) profit in PoDC so there is not much demand from new miners.  If the recent airdrop can convert more than 1% of the new users then we should see this stabilize or turn around, otherwise the markets are likely to be peppered with more 2900 BBP sell orders.

I will add some supporting arguments why to list BBP at MCT+ platform and why it's not just another exchange:
1) It's ALT platform - you can trade alt2alt directly
2) You can create ANY pair between BBP and any other supported coin there (not just BTC, USD,...)
3) You can made offers (even private offers) for selling complete MN
4) It can serve as a standard Escrow
5) Now (even prime) listing is very unexpensive and platform seems to grow and be more important (listing will be more expensive later)
6) Low fees (no fees right now until end of beta stage)
7) In time they will bring also secondary exchange (similar to common exchanges) so it's just paying once for two kinds of exchanges actually.

As you can see, it's not just another exchange. Considering all of this it's no brainer imho (especially for this welcoming price). But it's up-to-you  guys,  the proposal transaction was sent to BBP network. Feel free to vote as you like when you see the proposal there.

First off, thanks for the proposals.  The more voices we hear the better we become.

I'm still of the opinion we don't need another exchange unless it were a top 20 or so one.  Having too many exchanges weakens our market and can lead to de-listing for insufficient volumes.  I do think P2P exchanges (i.e., decentralized exchanges) are harder to grasp than centralized ones.  This one is still in beta and so while a very very good price, it's going to be hard for it to gain ground in my mind.  Additionally having an exchange that is hard to use (or offline) ends up reflecting poorly on the coin to some extent.  The fact the underlying coin (MCT+) is not listed on CoinMarketCap is not a good sign.

I would think even though the price is low now, we'd be better off paying a higher price later IF the exchange can deliver on it's goals and we have the volume to support it.

A few initial questions

Core Investor Group - How are we to raise approximately $1M with a project that is only valued at about $900K right now? 

Sanctuaries - With less than 300 Sanctuaries, will there be enough power to do the calculations in a timely fashion? Without prejudice to what DASH has accomplished, it seems like a 30% ROI is about the lowest of any major masternode coins. which would mean we'd likely top out at about 900 Sanctuaries barring some other financial incentive. How many would be sufficient to process the data in a timely and meaningful way? Will this change the current requirements of Sanctuary holders to have more robust hosting?  That leads to the question of if we can do this with our current network, then we're really not talking about that much horsepower.  So how can we beat the professionals with what would amount to a small rack of servers?

Archived Proposals / Re: Proposal - listing BBP on GIN MN platform
« on: August 21, 2018, 12:18:33 pm »
Ok, the cost of $14/month for users seems pretty high to me given you can run the Sanctuary on a $5 Vultr VPS (or really on much cheaper VPS too).   it worth noting that nearly half of their hosted MN are Gin coin nodes, but its an interesting idea nonetheless!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13