Bible Pay

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10
Thank you. Initially, the testnet sancs were enabled even when the entire VPS was off for extended periods of time; now when they temporarily drop connection, all of the sancs appear to be banned and none appear to gave recovered without intervention.

 sanc count
  "total": 6,
  "enabled": 0

Am I on the same chain as you, as all the sancs on this testnet chain appear banned?

So I was working on reviving my testnet nodes, and I agree, they all look banned.  The only reason I see 2 non-banned, is the local GUI on one of my banned sancs still has the old list. 

Anyway, I would like to notify everyone of this command.  I believe this is the command we need to unban a deterministic sanc without recreating it:

protx update_service proTxHash newIP:new_port masternodeblsprivKey

You can actually get all this info from the banned sanc itself (you can type masternode status, and get the IP, port, and original proTx hash, and you can get the blsPrivKey from the biblepay.conf on the sanc).  On a side note, if you want to do this from the controller, you can get the IP, port, blsPrivKey, and ProTxHash from the deterministic.conf.  So either should work to unban the node.  This command is also the one we use to Update an IP address for a non-banned sanc.

So, looking at the state of affairs, the reason the rest of the sancs are banned is because we failed to make the LLMQs correctly (with no minimum quorums).  The chain was in sync on 2 of my 3, so I believe we "would have" stayed in sync if we didnt lose the supermajority of our sancs.

Since MIP shut his down, and Oncoas is down, and mine need revived, I think we should take this opportunity to reset the testnet chain.
Primarily because I dont like the "666" trash that some joker transmitted, and of course, because we have 200,000 empty testnet blocks (therefore its harder to manage when we are away).

I think it would be best for us to slow the chain down to prod length blocks, and reset it and have us re-create our sancs at this point.

So in light of this please wait until the next version - it will need to be a mandatory upgrade (for testnet).

Thanks everyone for what you have already done!

Active Discussions / Re: TestNet - BiblePay-Evolution & GSCs (Generic Smart Contracts)
« Last post by sunk818 on September 17, 2019, 05:17:19 pm »
The 20% POBH would be a standard calculation (692,193 * .20 = 138,438) per day.

Hi Rob - Can you clarify something for me? When a block is mined, the split between miner and sanctuary is split evenly. The amount that is split varies based (I think) on the difficulty set by Dark Gravity Wave (DGW) algorithm. So, your figure of 692,193 comes from a fixed difficulty value of some sort? I would think the PoBH and Sanctuary split will adhere to their respective percentages, but amount being split is not a fixed known is it?

I had considered that with ABN (anti bot net) being so successful, if you've considered making mined block values to be fixed or to dwindle on a fixed schedule of some sort like Bitcoin. It feels like to me that the economics breakdown is easier to project without the difficulty variable. Easier to market, easier to predict BBP earnings, and you don't have to change documentation as often.
Dear Rob,

Based on published data Ref:
And the approx current output, I have calculated the approx BBP allocation based on current QT, can you please confirm? Thank you.

Planned emission   

                %                BBP
Total monthly    51,914,467.00
Per day                  1,730,482.23
Curr QT    0.6        1,038,289.34

Sanc          0.25         259,572.34
PoBHv2    0.25         259,572.34
SB(?)         0.10         103,828.93
GSC           0.40          415,315.74

GSC breakdown:
POG            0.475     197,274.97
POOM        0.475     197,274.97
HEALING    0.050      20,765.79

Hi Oncoapop,

You almost have it perfectly right. 

Total monthly    51,914,467.00
Per day                  1,730,482.23
Curr QT    0.6        1,038,289.34

This is right, since we have 1.7MM per day emissions in 2019, with a QT level of 60%, that means we are emitting 692,193 per day (roughly) right now, yes.

On the block distribution, we recently had this change:

Changing it to :

20% - Charity and Governance (this is our 10% to orphan-charity + 10% to IT/PR/P2P/etc)
25% - GSC (this is for POG + Healing + Poom)
35% - Sanctuary budget  (This is currently 25% as you stated above but changes to 35% on our next mandatory upgrade)
20% - POBH/Security (This is for POBH Heat mining)

On the GSC breakdown:
Yes, 47.5% for POG, POOM=47.5%, and healing .05%, yes exactly.

So this means on a given day:

Total Gross emissions before QT = 1.7MM, minus 60% QT equals a gross daily emission of 692,193. 
Out of this (692,193 * 35%) 242,267 would go to the sanctuary in the future.

On the GSC, we actually will escrow 45% per block in advance - to cover the monthly and daily GSC budget - but pay out about 330K per day (total) for GSC - this is because the single monthly payment is only once but 330K is paid daily.  The 330K daily plus the monthly superblock amount equals the 45% per block escrow amount.

The 20% POBH would be a standard calculation (692,193 * .20 = 138,438) per day.

Production Proposals / Re: Remove Port Restriction on Hosted Sanctuaries
« Last post by inblue on September 16, 2019, 03:00:59 pm »
I support this. Another positive reason is less time spent on configuring and watching multiple servers.
Production Proposals / Remove Port Restriction on Hosted Sanctuaries
« Last post by Rob Andrews on September 15, 2019, 01:31:18 pm »
So this idea is spearheaded by Apollon and I also have heard of this idea from TheSnat before.

The idea is to remove the port restriction on sactuaries, and allow the sanc to be hosted from any port number.

Technically, we know this will work because XAP and BlockLogic (BLTG) are doing it already.

(The port restriction is this:  Dash must run on port 9999 only and if a user hosts from other than 9999, the Masternode will be rejected from the network.  For BiblePay they must run on port 40000).

Dash put the port restriction in to be more corporate friendly for Network Admins - IE - they wanted network admins to know that if port 9999 is to be open, its specifically for Dash traffic.

Initially I was slightly against the idea, when I imagined we would have one sanc per user, I figured each of us could afford the $5 hosting fee per month.

However, as we evolved I have seen another side to this situation:  During downward price spirals some of our users who are cost concious would like to run more than one sanc on a hosted VPS.  From my perspective, I changed my mind to neutral when I experienced a very bad service level with one of my last sanc hosts (not vultr), and I had to hurry and switch to Apollon (thank God they were available at the time).  What Im alluding to is, if removing the port restriction would have given me for example a path to create more instances per vultr node for example, it might have been a life saver.  (I dont mean financially for me, I mean for the sake of the GSC contracts being voted on by my nodes).

In light of this I've become neutral.  I obviously want high performance per node.

Please provide any opinions on this idea, if this will be a terrible move for some reason.

As far as Apollons perspective, they are in business to make money.  I realize our partners need to be healthy and make a profit, and if we lose our partners, we lose our ability to host sancs.  Lets think of this from all angles.

Possible Positive reason:
If less BBP is spent on hosting less is liquidated on the exchange for hosting fees to be paid

Possible Negative reason:
Will we look weak and fragile if we allow this?

Does anyone understand this problem?

I believe we have determined your coin-age was the problem via PM but I cant quite remember  --   Has this been resolved now?

I think you just need more BBP in your wallet :(.

Thank you. Initially, the testnet sancs were enabled even when the entire VPS was off for extended periods of time; now when they temporarily drop connection, all of the sancs appear to be banned and none appear to gave recovered without intervention.

 sanc count
  "total": 6,
  "enabled": 0

Hi Oncoapop,

I see people have been replying to this thread; sorry, I was relying on an email notification and I didnt get one this time.

Anyhoo - Ill start with POSE.  The reason you were not banned for the first 99% of releases (Except, our last 3 releases!), is because, this branch, the dash .14 deterministic branch - has a major change compared to our Prod (.13) branch.  This branch POSE bans based on LLMQ quorum enforcement.

So the partial answer is - up til the last 3 releases - we did not have that spork enabled.  So your sancs were free to do anything they wanted (be off, anything).  The prod branch (.13) works a different way - those guys are banned based on Masternode Pings.

Moving on to the last two releases - at the point when we enabled LLMQs:  We now need 3 sanctuaries Keeping track of the network quorums (these are 60 minute heartbeats written into mined blocks).  They appear to be very strict.  But we also have had a network in tatters in testnet.  Im half tempted to change the block time back to 7 mins and have us start over!  Since we generated 200,000 empty blocks LOL.

Ill get back on and address some of these other things asap.  Im trying to finish some things up with BMS so we can merge that into a testnet thread also.

Ill restart my sancs and check the chain asap, also.

Production Proposals / [MIP] Aug-Sep compensation
« Last post by MIP on September 12, 2019, 11:18:35 am »
Hi all

I would like to kindly ask some compensation for Aug&Sep 2019 support/development tasks

Evo binary compiles for Linux x64 & ARM and MacOS, mainnet and testnet: 1h
User support in discord/email/other channels: 4h
Mobile wallet sync problem solving: 4h
Debug/fix -reindex crash: 8h
Follow up with Apollon and Satoshisolutions: 3h

In all 1000 (2.150,000 BBP), capped to 1,200,000 (1,2M) BBP

Thank you very much
Production Proposals / - Press Release
« Last post by togoshigekata on September 12, 2019, 12:04:40 am »
Submit a Press Release


"The base price for press releases is $165 for up to 400 words.
Additional words are $.50 a word. Other add-ons are available."

"Add Media
 Logo or Photo +$40.00
 Video +$50.00"

"Also post on Religion News Association website
Religion News Association (RNA) is a sister organization of RNS
and provides resources for professional journalists +$50.00"



I am requesting $255 for article, logo and
$255 / $0.000413 per BBP = 617,433 BBP from the PR budget


We would still need an article to be written,
so this would be held as a PR fund until that is figured out


Christ Coin

Christian Traders
Production Proposals / SouthXchange Faucet
« Last post by togoshigekata on September 11, 2019, 02:31:46 pm »
I sent 750,000 BBP (about $315) to SouthXchange for their Faucet:


Payout is about 250 BBP to 50 BBP (11 cents to 2 cents)
they put a portion of the funds in the faucet and then they refill it back up periodically
(Seems like the payout is around 1/1000 of the amount in the faucet)

Users have to be registered to use the faucet
and I believe they can click on one faucet once every 3 hours,
and there are multiple faucets to choose from


Anyone can start up or contribute to the faucet
(just have to create a support ticket
and have the funds available in your account)


They retweeted us on Twitter:

Learn more about SouthXChange and help support them:


I am requesting 250,000 BBP per month over the next 3 months from the PR budget
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10