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.

Topics - Rob Andrews

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8
Sanctuary Discussions / Bug Bounty Program
« on: May 11, 2019, 03:33:34 PM »
If anyone finds a critical security bug in BiblePay, please start by announcing it here.

We will work with you and reward up to 2 million BBP for the bug, depending on its systemic nature.


Current Bug Bounties:

Bug Reward Type 1:
Capability to solve a proof-of-bible-hash in a GPU or ASIC:
The white-hat-hacker will need to prove to us that it is not only possible to hash a block in a GPU (or ASIC device), but the blockhash solution was obtained is also hashed in a more efficient manner than the PC.  An example would be to prove that a certain GPU and program (created by the hacker) will solve a POBH block in 1 second while the same standard-PC would take much longer to solve (IE 30 seconds for example).  (Or a similar high-efficiency scenario resulting in at least a 200% gain so as to ensure the gain is a real gain by BiblePay devs).

NOTE - You must be able to prove this attack will work against production in a reproducible way.
An example that will not be sufficient:  Creating a test environment where your GPU program can solve a theoretical bible-hash in test only.  The reason this case is not really an exploit is our POBH algo also passes in certain live network values - into the hash function in real time, such as the 'allowable maximum nonce'.  Meaning that in a test environment you are cheating if you don't take live production data into account.

An example that is valid:  A c program written by the hacker taking into account live production data and solving a POBH block in a reproducible manner that provides a financial edge to the hacker.

REWARD:  2 MILLION BBP - paid by Rob Andrews founder - Rob will only attempt to recoup the loss with a proposal after the hacker is paid and Rob will take on the risk


Bug Reward Type 2:

Capability to prove that a BiblePay GSC smart contract can leak rewards to a hacker that were not earned by the hacker through GSC projects (or, any reproducible security exploit resulting in Leaked BiblePay coins to the hacker that the hacker did not earn):

This type of bug rewards a white-hat-hacker for finding an attack vector into one of our GSC (generic smart contracts), one of our Projects (such as POG or healing) and finding a way to pull coins out of BiblePay that the hacker really did not earn. 

An example of this would be trying to create or falsify a smart contract, and "slide it by" the sanctuaries to approve it.  Or finding any way to pull coins out of an existing project that were not earned by the user.  All smart contract rewards requite coin*age from UTXOs, so it is our belief it is impossible to pull money out of one of our daily contracts that is not earned.

Please post a question if you are unsure if your hacking effort will result in payment.

REWARD: 2 MILLION BBP - Paid by Rob Andrews Founder - Rob will attempt to recoup the loss only after the hacker is paid and Rob takes on the risk


Bug Reward Type 3:

Notify us of any security bug that is found in our software, such as BEAST, Crime, HTTPS exploits, SSL exploits, ECDSA, BLS, or any upstream bug discovered by Bitcoin/Dash or a community bug.

Reward: 10K+ depending on the nature of bug - at the discretion of the devs.


Archived Proposals / Compassion April 2019 Recurring sponsorships
« on: April 15, 2019, 09:28:58 AM »
We sponsor 55 compassion orphans @ $2090.00 per month.

Capping @ 5MM.

Archived Proposals / April Payroll
« on: April 15, 2019, 09:25:17 AM »

Commits on Dec 29, 2018 Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Dec 29, 2018
Merge branch 'master' of 

biblepay committed on Dec 29, 2018 Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Dec 29, 2018
bump version to (leisure for mainnet&testnet)

Merge branch 'develop' (issues and PPA scripts & doc) 

Issue #55 hide boincmd shell windows in Win32/64

Restore dash xpm files to allow Licht's ubuntu PPAs to build without  

Issue #62 some failure routes in SignStake might leave wallet unlocked Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Dec 29, 2018
Commits on Dec 25, 2018 Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Dec 25, 2018
Commits on Dec 24, 2018 Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Dec 24, 2018

ommits on Dec 23, 2018 Upgrade (Mandatory for TestNet) 

biblepay committed on Dec 23, 2018
Commits on Dec 21, 2018 Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Dec 21, 2018
Commits on Dec 20, 2018 Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Dec 20, 2018
Commits on Dec 19, 2018 Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Dec 19, 2018 Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Dec 19, 2018 - Leisure Upgrade (Mandatory for TestNet) 

biblepay committed on Dec 19, 2018
Commits on Dec 17, 2018 Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Dec 17, 2018
Commits on Dec 16, 2018 Upgrade (Mandatory for TestNet) 

biblepay committed on Dec 16, 2018
Commits on Dec 13, 2018 Upgrade (Mandatory for TestNet) 

biblepay committed on Dec 13, 2018 Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Dec 13, 2018 Upgrade (Mandatory for TestNet) 

biblepay committed on Dec 13, 2018
Commits on Dec 12, 2018 Upgrade (TestNet) 

biblepay committed on Dec 12, 2018 Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Dec 12, 2018 Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Dec 12, 2018 Upgrade (Mandatory for TestNet) 

biblepay committed on Dec 12, 2018

biblepay committed on Dec 12, 2018 Upgrade (Mandatory for TestNet) 

biblepay committed on Dec 12, 2018 Upgrade (Mandatory for TestNet)

Commits on Dec 11, 2018 Upgrade (Mandatory for TestNet) 

biblepay committed on Dec 11, 2018 (Mandatory for TestNet) 

biblepay committed on Dec 11, 2018
Commits on Dec 8, 2018 Upgrade (Mandatory for TestNet) 

biblepay committed on Dec 8, 2018 Upgrade(Testnet only) 

biblepay committed on Dec 8, 2018
Commits on Dec 7, 2018 Upgrade (TestNet) 

biblepay committed on Dec 7, 2018
 2 Upgrade (TestNet only) 

biblepay committed on Dec 7, 2018 Only) 

biblepay committed on Dec 7, 2018 (TestNet only) 

biblepay committed on Dec 7, 2018
Commits on Dec 6, 2018 (testnet) 

biblepay committed on Dec 6, 2018 (Testnet only) 

biblepay committed on Dec 6, 2018 Upgrade (Testnet only) 

biblepay committed on Dec 6, 2018

> 12MM, capping at 3MM

Active Discussions / Adding QT (Quantitative Tightening) to Evolution
« on: April 07, 2019, 01:58:33 PM »
QT - v1.1

This is a proposal to add an enhancement to BiblePay Evolution - and potentially test it in testnet if approved.

This feature, called QT (not to be confused with the QT Company or the QT wallet), called Quantitative Tightening, is something similar to a feature found in Goldman Sach's cryptocurrency design for their trading crypto: but in their case, they wanted the money supply to loosen when *trading* demand was low and tighten when demand was high - and they were basically trying to create a currency that was friendly to profit off of trading moves.  But, In my humble assumption, I assume this type of crypto would allow Goldman to set up trades with groups of counterparties who would then profit off of the move(s).

However at BiblePay, this feature didn't catch my eye for us as that is a different line of business, but a variant off this model did.

Instead, we are proposing that we create an algorithm where money supply (new coin issuance) dries up when the market price is below the "acceptable useful price" and normal emission operations resume when the BBP price is above the threshhold target value.

QT was partially coded by Rob as proof of concept at that time - but we got busy then we actually never discussed it in a thread (fully).

Let me first explain the algorithm and the parameters:

Market Price: This is the price in USD BBP is trading at : this is currently $0.000256 USD (1.58%) on coinmarketcap.
Acceptable Useful Price:  This is the Target price we all want BBP to trade at (IE .01 USD for example) in that case, that is 39.06* higher than where we are now.
Cumulative Deflation percent per day:  This is the Quantitative Tightening Rate per day, or the amount of decrease in our emission per day.  If this number is set to 1%, we would emit 1% less coins per day across the board.  So as an example, if we emit 1 million BBP per day on day #1, On Day #2, we would emit 990,000 coins.  On day #50, we would emit 50% less, or only 500,000 coins.  (Until the AUP is reached).  If it is never reached we stay at the CDP cap level (see next parameter) indefinitely.
Business Logic: When the AUP is breached, the Cumulative Deflation percent per day starts to Shrink in reverse by 1% per day.  So for example, if our CDP was at 60% when biblepay breached the AUP, the next day the CDR would be 59, the next 58.

CDP Tightening Cap %: If we set this figure to say 50, this means we would stop tightening at 50%, and maintain this tightening status per day until the AUR is reached.
Price Information Gathering:  The Sanctuaries will have code that makes them smart enough to pull the BBP price (from a source similar to CoinMarketCaps API), and automatically agree on this price in a smart-consensus, and they auto-vote on the price to agree.  Therefore the core wallets will all know the price of BBP per day and may display the price on the overview page and in the RPC.  We can also display the current QT level on the overview and the rpc.

Let me give a live, real world example so most questions are expelled early:

Day 1: We go live with QT and our price is .000256.
We go live with a Target price to .01 USD/BBP (via Sanc vote), a Max CDP Tighetning cap to 65%, the Daily Cumulative Tightening % to 1% and go live.

Day 2: Sancs vote on a price of .000256.  QT increases its tightening to 1%.  Coins emitted are 1% less.
Day #30: Sancs vote on a price of .000300.  Qt has a tightening level of 30%.  Coins emitted are 30% less.
Day #60: Sancs vote on a price of .000600.  Qt has a tightening level of 60%.  Coins emitted are 60% less.

Day #90:  Sancs vote on a price of .001200.  QT still has a tightening level of 60%.  Coins emitted are 60% less.

Day #200: Sancs vote on a price of .01101.  (QT *was* at 60% this day),
 QT realizes we have breached the target.  QT decreases to 59%.
 Coins emitted tomorrow are 59% less (IE full normal emission).

Day #201: Sancs vote on a price of .01100.  QT Was at 59%.  QT is now at 58%.

Day #202:  Sancs vote on a price of .00955.  QT realizes the price is below the AUR.  QT sets the tightening level to 59%.

Cycle continues forever. 

So from my perspective, this would be an interesting feature to add to Evolution.  If it becomes a bad expiriment, we can vote to turn it off via spork.  I feel that the feature gives us a chance for "free advertising" in that our price will potentially rise up the ranks, and this will cause cumulative additional interest in us.  Also, we *may* be able to help more orphans with a higher price (if QT causes more people to join, and catches on) causing a positive propensity of use of biblepay.

Btw, someone asked me back when we first discussed this idea, should we cap emissions on both the governance budget and the GSC budget and the miners and sancs, or just mining emissions?  In this revision, I feel we should tighten emissions in *all* areas, as a global tightening.  The reason I say this is for one it keeps our entire codebase clean and simple.  For two, it will add less uncertainty and less volatility to the idea.  And finally I think we could effectively govern even if the budget is shrinking (but the price is rising) without much trouble (in contrast to having a very low price and a high quantity of coins to spend each month).

So for this proposal, I propose to Code QT as a feature so we can release it to testnet and test it in Evo, and then release it with the release.

I propose a 60% max tightening cap, and a .01 price target for Biblepay, and a resurrection of Togo's Operation One-Cent along with the release of Evo.

EDIT:  This proposal has been revised to v1.1 with the following changes:
The CDP will now increase from 0-60, but reverse from 60-0 in 1% steps.

Archived Proposals / Side By Side Women of Uganda
« on: April 06, 2019, 10:34:22 AM »
First a little history.
We sponsored 10 orphans through BLOOM up til Dec 31, 2018.

During the beginning of the year we technically could not afford to continue to sponsor the full quantity, so we intended to scale back to at least 5 or lower this year.

We received a message from Sarah at Side by Side (this is Blooms vendor) that 'payment has been cancelled' as of 2019 (another words the children are at risk of being dropped from the boarding school) and she asked if we could do anything directly (IE would we like to step in and sponsor any of these children).

I asked which 4 would need us the most?  She listed:

TheSnat and I started to train her on how to liquidate crypto, but she has not successfully finished that course (she is working with him now).

In the mean time I volunteered to step in and pay for 90 days, one-time to continue the children so that they do not have to leave the boarding school.

Note that this particular arrangement is $80 per child per month because they receive not only the normal meals and school, but also boarding.

I am requesting $320 * 3 months = $960.00 or  3,720,930bbp.

Receipt - sending wire now:

Active Discussions / Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« on: April 05, 2019, 08:33:46 PM »
Since BiblePay is moving to Evolution in June, we have the opportunity to potentially change the Sanctuary lockup requirements from 1,550,001 to another figure.

I think this would be a good time to discuss potentially changing this lockup requirement higher in order to :
- Give our investors more ROI per Sanc
- Decrease Hosting Costs
- Increase reliability per Sanc (because user may afford a higher quality host and have more time to monitor each sanc)

The obvious downside to this is a higher barrier of entry cost for the small investor.
But, with our recent downturn in price bringing a sanctuary investment to only $400, I think this is a feasible idea.

For me as an investor, I would personally lean towards consolidating so I can spend less on hosting fees.
Analyzing the effect of wasted hosting:

We currently have about 500 sancs.
Our sanc owners are spending a very high percentage of the revenue on hosting (If hosting is $10 per month, with $20 of revenue that is 50% spent on hosting).

I believe reducing the sanc count by half will not hurt biblepay (as 250 nodes are still more than enough to service our network), and, it could be argued that 250 high quality sancs are better than 500 low quality sancs (as with low quality instant sends could get lost).

Additionally over the next 5 years, even if we move to 125 sancs, our sanc count will again increase (due to more coins being emitted and a lockup ratio average of approx 50% coins become locked into sancs).

I propose that we enter 3 sanctuary proposals floating this idea with different size lockups:
1) 3 million lockup
2) 4.5 million lockup
3) 7 million lockup

If all 3 are voted down we keep 1.55 MM.


Currently testing Dash 0.14 features in BiblePay v1.4.6.3+

Testnet Download Links:

Windows v.

Linux PC 32bits

Linux PC 64bits

Linux ARM64 daemon:
Linux ARM32 daemon:


Mac-OS QT version here:

The purpose of this thread is to test BiblePay-Evolution and our new GSCs.

BiblePay-Evolution is our next release (scheduled for June 2019).

It includes all of the features that Bitcoin and Dash added to Dash over the course of 2018.
Including Segwit, Security updates, Lightning network support, BIPS and DIPS, ChainLocks (51% attack prevention), Deterministic Masternodes, Non-financial transactions, the Depends Development Build environment, C++14 compatibility for devs, more reliable chain syncing, better chain reorganization code, more reliable Governance messages, more efficient messages, HD wallets, High definition display support, InstantSend improvements, and more.

In BIblePay, we have added ABN (Anti-BotNet) mining.  This is a feature that requires miners to include an ABN transaction in each of their blocks that spends coin-age according to the network coin-age requirement (see getmininginfo).

We have also added GSCs (Generic Smart Contracts) client and server side.  The GSC allows BiblePay to abstract payments away from a hard consensus to allow the business logic rules to be malleable and configured so that they do not break consensus rules.  This results in a more reliable prod environment.

Before testing, please read about our GSC's here:

To Download BiblePay-Evolution, look for v1.4.0.1+ for windows on this link (at first, we will stay with 32 bit builds until we get close to Prod):

MIP is working on building linux and MAC builds.  If necessary I will be able to release a link for Ubuntu64 builds/linux also.

To self compile Evo:

Let us start by testing standard core functionality in testnet.

Launching the client:

Create a biblepaytest.conf file with the following contents:

Place the file in ~/.biblepayevolution

Start testnet by typing:
./biblepay-qt -conf=biblepaytest.conf

(Note the blocks and chainstate will sync into the ./biblepayevolution/testnet3 folder.

NOTE:  We are keeping BiblePay's blocks, wallet, and chainstate in its own dedicated folder until the end of the test cycle at which time we determine if it is safe to change our pointer back to legacy biblepay files (as Evolutions blocks support a new file format, compressed, and Evo's wallet format has also been upgraded), so it is safer for us to keep these separate for now. 

NOTE: This version will also work side-by-side our production nodes, it will sync blocks, send and receive coins, however it will not peer with legacy Sanctuaries (as their protocol is too old).  We will need to test creation and usage of Sancs in Prod in Evo, and upgrade all legacy Sancs with a mandatory.

Getting started with Evolution:
Healing Campaign:
Street Healing:
Spiritual Warfare:

How to upgrade a legacy Sanc:

How to create a deterministic sanc from scratch:

** Low hassle Syncing from Zero **

EDIT:  NOTE:  Please do not use low hassle syncing in testnet after September 22nd 2019 - as we have reset the chain to block 0, please disregard the following lines.
(Keeping this here so we can port this to prod during the next release).

As our blockchain gets bigger it will be useful for us to release utilities to allow one click syncing from zero.
This first version is only for testnet and linux.  Later, I will extend this to windows and prod.

I will check this into github later, but for now, let me give manual instructions to use the script:

From your linux box:

cd ~/biblepay-evolution
(This is where your source starts, ie /src is one folder down)
chmod 777

Now to get in sync for TestNet only, the script automatically deletes just the data files (dont worry, it wont delete anything else), then it pulls down the snapshot of the blocks gzipped and unzips them into the correct places (including the llmq and all necessary governance files), then its up to you re-launch the wallet.  The script does close biblepay as long as your machine supports pkill.

To sync from 0 type:


I just created a windows version and tested it on windows 7 and it works.  Will check-in during the next Develop release.

Archived Proposals / Compassion March 2019 Recurring Sponsorships
« on: March 22, 2019, 11:07:00 AM »
Our recurring charge is approx $2090, or 8.931MM, capping at 7MM.

Archived Proposals / March 2019 Payroll
« on: March 22, 2019, 10:58:53 AM »
I'm posting my commits from November 2018, because back when we started BiblePay, we didn't have a governance system until December 2017 (that is why these invoices are 4 months old) (not because our price dropped, or because we are trying to back-invoice), these have been consistently behind since the beginning.

Commits on Nov 21, 2018
Merge branch 'master' of

biblepay committed on Nov 21, 2018 - Leisure Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Nov 21, 2018
Commits on Nov 19, 2018
PPA script and doc 

biblepay committed on Nov 16, 2018
Merge branch 'master' of

biblepay committed on Nov 16, 2018 Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Nov 16, 2018
Merge pull request #45 from thesnat21/Add_Spork_Outputs 

Commits on Nov 14, 2018
Better detection for BOINC client and error messages per OS

disable boost::process ShellCommand temporarily for non MacOS until w 

Commits on Nov 11, 2018
boinccmd call for MacOS ( 

Commits on Nov 2, 2018

I'm requesting 80 hrs * 40 = 3200 = 13.2MM bbp, capping @ 3.5 MM

Archived Proposals / The Future of PODC - Proof of Distributed Computing
« on: February 28, 2019, 11:52:58 AM »

Feb 28th, 2019

My what a ride its been in 2018.  (If we only knew everything that we know now, before the beginning of 2018, we would all be a little further ahead in life) - but for me - drawing closer to Jesus is the greatest achievement, and should never be traded for anything.

Going into 2018, I thought I was already experienced, but 2018 redefined that 'assumption' in many ways.  We had lots of things happen in our forums.  We had the huge HODL rise and crash.  I think while we were at our peak of 329 monthly orphans, we also took a lot of credit for this rise as if we - as a community - succeeded at something.  Another words, we should have been monitoring for our own pride and improving - but we let ourselves fall with the HODL fall.  Be very wary of taking credit for achievements -- I believe we were primarily influenced from external forces.  The cryptocurrency market was clearly influenced by Bitcoin and Dashes rise (and fall).

I personally had strong opinions of long held beliefs in certain areas only to be tested, and I've changed my opinion about certain things.  We had our sessions with our focus group (our internal advisors) and our external advisors (an SEC attorney, Manna, outwest advisors, DAHF, etc) and learned that we should be a utility, with a known revenue stream.  That going with DAHF would have pulled us in an anti-God direction.  And that we should add infrastructure to invite a Christian base to use the gospel features.

I'm only saying all of this because I want people to realize that many factors influence the decision of a good algorithm for BiblePay.  It's not that we are being hot and cold, it's that this is a complicated environment, and I personally want to make a long lasting decision that satisfies all of the facets to the highest degree.

We are trying to decide if we should retire PODC or keep it as an algorithm within Biblepay-core. 
The impetus for removing it is that a lot of us feel that our user-base has stagnated because PODC is too hard to understand and set up.
Thefore, it prevents us from sending the wallet to a brand new user - and allowing them to figure out on their own how to set up mining, receive rewards and tell their friends about BBP (free advertising and growth).

The problem with keeping both algorithms is it requires constant maintenace from the developers to focus on more than one.  The other problem is splitting rewards by 96% and 4% does not give POG the chance to grow.  So, the question is, should we completely retire PODC, and give the budget over to POG, so that POG can potentially grow our userbase automatically?

It could also be potentially floated to split the algorithms 50-50, allowing them to compete.  However, the issue with this is then our IT department still must support PODC and all of its related dependencies and infrastructure.  And, does a 50% PODC environment help biblepay more than a 100% POG environment?

That is what we will be discussing here.

Let me name off some of the facets in a mining algorithm:
IT Development Hours
IT Maintenance Hours
Coolness factor
Risk of a constantly supply of work units
User attrition/augmentation levels, Practicality, User Acceptance, Ease of Use, Community Growth/Price appreciation/Total orphan benefit
Algorithm Extensibility/Fragility
Hard emission reconciliation/Oracles, Whale Approval
Total infrastructure size and maintenance (3rd party credit sites, credit network, debug tool sites, pools)
Greed-Arms Race-Rat Race Levels
Jesus' (Christian Growth) levels/Christian Attraction/Christian Future
Blockchain Security

To start to compare the PODC algorithm to POG, let me first attempt to name some of the pros and cons of PODC:
NOTE!  The following views are *my opinion* as founder; if you disagree please have a civil conversation below, and vote appropriately.

Pros with PODC:

IT/Development: The Creation of PODC is already coded
Coolness:  The Rosetta cancer mining program is 'cool' and gives us a good image as in doing positive work for humanity, the highly technical users are drawn to 'try' podc as a challenge
Extensibility: The algorithm is modular (in that it works outside of biblepay and uses a sanctuary consensus),  and extensible (in that business logic changes can be made at the sanc level without requiring a mandatory)
Price Support: PODC has the 20bbp-per-rac rule meaning it "may or may not" cause price appreciation (I vote neutral on this as we can't tell at this point if this is good or bad for our price, since we appear to be stagnating).

Cons with PODC:

User Acceptance: The algorithm requires a dictionary of terminology to understand, so it appears to be complicated to learn by newbies, it appears to be complicated to be activated and maintained (without knowing the inner workings under the hood to understand how to keep it purring)
Dev Maintenance:  Development hours for Enhancing podc are still not complete, the algorithm certainly needs improved in the area of ease of use, the maintenance hours involved in maintaining PODC from an IT standpoint are relatively high
Fragility:  Fragility is high,  the risk of the contract breaking or changing is high, and the  BOINC/Rosetta/WCG interface risk is high
Work-unit-risk: The risk of work-units running out is medium to high
User attrition levels:  User levels appear to be low and stagnating (based on our sideways to shrinking podc diff level and user count), podc appears to attract richer users with many horizontal computers (in contrast to average users with a low pc count)-and this appears to stagnate growth as the rich users take a high percentage of rewards away from the small users.  The small user base appears to have stagnated our price into a range of 7 satoshi (due to the average miner being reluctant to sell below the electricity cost of PODC).  (I feel BBP has a much bigger potential in many other ways). 
Infrastructure Size and maintenance: The total infrastructure size is High (due to needing 3rd party tools for debugging and for credit reporting), and third party sites like pools and web support sites need maintained.
Greed-Rat-Race-Arms Race Level:  The Greed/Rat-Race level appears to be very high (as each user wants to achieve higher RAC than others) and this appears to create an environment in BBP where higher results are more important than talking about the gospel (Ive posted many snippets to links about Jesus in the middle of our forum, and actually was screamed at by people saying I was spamming, but yet I dont recall anyone starting a real conversation - other than a couple people who just disagreed about the Jews a year ago).
  The people we are attracting to the community for cancer research seem to be more scientific and less Theological (this is entirely an assumption and I dont mean to offend anyone - I actually want the atheists to come, but they dont appear to be coming to learn about Jesus from PODC), and I realize this is a hard requirement, so I simplify this down to : how can we attract a LOT of new users that turn to Christians that stick around.
Blockchain Security:  We have less hashpower being directed at POBH and more to PODC (because financially PODC pays 96% of the reward) so this results in less total network security with more machine power being used for RAC. 
Oracle/Whale Approval:   Whales may be reluctant to jump in as a BiblePay investor if emissions are not fully reconcilable in a hard way on-chain (when the whale takes into account the entire subject for coinbase-reconciliation).

Pros with POG:

IT/Creation: POG is coded,  99% of the POG maintenance (est) is already completed
IT/Maintenance:  POG is low maintenance
Work-Unit-Risk: POG does not have a work-unit limit
User attrition/growth:  POG has the capacity to attract *more users per consumed electricity KWH than PODC* because it is 80% greener than PODC and in addition it rewards users for holding distinct coins (meaning that a reconciled POG user daily reward points to One head, not many machines) therefore I conclude POG equals more HEADCOUNT than PODC, This theoretically means BiblePay expands its participation level, this results in community growth/help with tasks/price appreciation/more orphans, POG is very easy to setup - it is almost turnkey.
Fragility:  The algorithm is not fragile
Reconciliation/Trust/WhaleApproval: The payment emissions are hard and reconcilable, there is no oracle / trust issue, there is no tampering issue, POG would theoretically be whale approved.
Infrastructure: POG reduces total infrastructure down to an in-wallet novel pool and removes the need for 3rd party credit sites, pools, and debug tools.
Greed-arms-race-rat-race:  The rat-race and greed level appears to be very low (as people will be Giving to the foundation to receive a reward and hashing on single machines per head) and only out of personal generosity running multiple hashing machines.   
Christian Growth:  The total headcount appears to be aligned with increasing the attraction of Christian community members
Blockchain Security:  Security is increased due to having an increasing reward (1 mil per day towards pog) means a 10* userbase size increase, meaning a 10* POW security increase.  POG scales well to thousands of users.

Cons with POG:

Coolness factor: POG is much more "simple" than PODC (IE we aren't solving humanity's most complex problems) so we lose the "cool" factor of cancer-mining.
Extensibility:  POG can't allow us (currently) to change its rules without a mandatory (extensibility). 

Archived Proposals / Cameroon One - Installment 2
« on: February 23, 2019, 05:58:03 PM »
We only rose $492.55 last month due to our low price, so we are asking for 2 mil more for Todd at Cameroon One.

Note: Todds colleague Hillary will handle the liquidation, thanks Hillary!

Archived Proposals / Compassion Feb 2019 recurring orphan sponsorships
« on: February 20, 2019, 12:27:59 PM »
To maintain our 102 orphan sponsorships:

Capping at 6 mil.

Archived Proposals / Feb Payroll
« on: February 20, 2019, 12:22:09 PM »
Commits on Oct 26, 2018
Merge pull request #48 from thesnat21/Update_Default_Theme 

biblepay committed on Oct 26, 2018
Commits on Oct 17, 2018 

biblepay committed on Oct 17, 2018
Commits on Oct 16, 2018 

biblepay committed on Oct 16, 2018
Commits on Oct 7, 2018 Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Oct 7, 2018
Commits on Oct 6, 2018 Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Oct 6, 2018
Commits on Oct 3, 2018 

biblepay committed on Oct 3, 2018
Commits on Oct 2, 2018 

biblepay committed on Oct 2, 2018
Commits on Oct 1, 2018 Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Oct 1, 2018 Upgrade (at block 77000) 

biblepay committed on Oct 1, 2018

Commits on Oct 30, 2018 Upgrade 

biblepay committed on Oct 30, 2018 - Leisure 

biblepay committed on Oct 30, 2018
Commits on Oct 26, 2018
Merge pull request #47 from thesnat21/Add_exec_helper 

biblepay committed on Oct 26, 2018


120 hours for the month of October:
 23,076,923 bbp

Capping at 3.5 Million

Archived Proposals / Re-Enable Team BiblePay Requirement in PODC
« on: January 19, 2019, 04:25:52 PM »
I recommend that we hold an emergency vote that Proposes that Team BiblePay be REQUIRED to participate in PODC  rewards (in contrast to having no team requirement).

The reason for this is TheSnat has discovered that 5 Gridcoin users are sharing UTXOs by sending them back and forth to each other more than once per day.

Although we have a feature to Stop this behavior, the spork is not fully enabled in prod because it would require a mandatory upgrade (to ensure all of the remaining sancs honor this setting).

In the mean time I feel it is highly unfair to leave this activity unchecked at the expense of our core team.  (The activity is penalizing small users rewards at the expense of the bad actors).  (We estimate the ill-achieved UTXOs to be rewarding 20% of the PODC budget per day.)

Therefore I recommend that we vote in the Team Requirement to be REQUIRED again within 48 hours.

Secondly, we have been very patient, and the original idea behind Not requiring the team was that BiblePay would grow in popularity by reaching the mass of boinc users.  IMHO, it clearly has not had that effect.  What we have observed is a few very large users (I am told Turkish) have been hogging the top rewards, and we have seen stagnation.  This is actually driving away our smaller users.

Thirdly, our PODC difficulty level has not increased since we removed the team requirement, it has decreased.

In light of this I recommend the sanctuaries consider these factors to vote the way you feel would be best for the community at large.

Vote YES for us to REQUIRE TEAM BIBLEPAY to participate in PODC.

Vote NO for us to leave PODC as is and Not require a particular team.

Archived Proposals / Release POG Mining to Prod
« on: January 19, 2019, 04:10:00 PM »
This proposal authorizes the BiblePay Dev Team to release a mandatory upgrade that includes a change to our primary mining algorithm:

We will switch our primary heat mining algorithm to POG (Proof-of-Giving), which includes our existing POBH (proof of bible hash) heat mining algorithm, but changes the payout mechanism to use an in-wallet pool.

This means that 80% of the Heat Mined Rewards (POW) will go into the POG pool (in contrast to being given to the POW miner who mined the block).
20% of the Heat Mined Rewards (POW) will be given to the Reaper (the one who mined the block).

BiblePay POBH has an inherent 51% attack prevention mechanism called nonce-limiting that helps prevent a 51% attack.  We also have DGW (Dark Gravity Wave).

On a related side-note, in the future, we plan on implementing the 51% attack eliminator (being released in Evolution) which is technically viable since we have Sanctuaries, therefore we embrace the idea.

This proposal does not eliminate the PODC (proof-of-distributed-computing) budget - we will enter a separate proposal for that.

In approximately 30 days our mandatory release will enable us to go live with POG.  This proposal authorizes POG daily pool payments to go live with the characteristics outlined above.

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