Bible Pay

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10
81
Also podc I think we could simplify by no team requirement and just require ^1.3. all bounce user needs to do is register their cpk. Wcg.rac just needs cpid and rac. Open it up. That will encourage more Bbp staking.

Probably not a bad idea, given everything we know at this point.  In that we only grew to 54 researchers since PODC 2.0 launched.

And, we need to take Talismans suggestion into account also (higher exponent or the same exponent).

I would like to encourage people to help in testnet, so that we can implement coin-age voting in the core wallet also.

Let me look into creating a poll for this.

And Ill add an item to my todo list now to look into binary storage for RAC.  Maybe we can load all the RAC in for all of WCG at once.



82
Also podc I think we could simplify by no team requirement and just require ^1.3. all bounce user needs to do is register their cpk. Wcg.rac just needs cpid and rac. Open it up. That will encourage more Bbp staking.

I support PODC simplification, but I would suggest an even greater coefficient. Small contributors would not be hurt, but running a cpu farm will become very costly. If big boys insist on keeping their places in the leaderboard, so be it - we would have more BBP staked for PODC earnings.
83
Also podc I think we could simplify by no team requirement and just require ^1.3. all bounce user needs to do is register their cpk. Wcg.rac just needs cpid and rac. Open it up. That will encourage more Bbp staking.
84
I've reached out to him three over the last few months but he has been difficult to reach after covid-19 started. The wallet version was out of date and was not updated for months. I suggested bbp be pulled from the faucet since withdrawls were not possible and it looks like freefaucet at least read my communications (although never received a reply ever).

Oh OK, good.

85
Production Proposals / Re: Automatic Price Mooning
« Last post by Rob Andrews on July 26, 2020, 09:02:07 AM »
I think the mining rewards for BBP should be left alone. Changing the reward based on the BTC price is too disruptive.  Changing the emission schedule will make newcomers feel unwelcome and not give a fair opportunity for newer community members that have invested in hardware and electricity. The mining mechanic is well established with all cryptocurrencies and I see more downsides to a feature like this. [/size]Miners will HODL if they feel they can sell for more later. Give miners a compelling reason to HODL (e.g. sanctuary or DWS) and they won't sell the BBP.

One problem I see with BiblePay though in its current state, is I think everyone feels hopeless.  I look at the sell wall (of 80 million coins) on SX, and thats what we got with conventional mining and conventional sell pressure.

One thing about APM that I really like is it gives us hope.  I feel like if I wake up every morning, and any one of say 5,000 of us (pretending we have a bigger community by then) could go on SX and move us up one satoshi to keep the mining going, that is 'hopeful' compared to 'bleak'.

I actually feel the current ecosystem is 'bleak' unless we had a proposal in that guaranteed 5 new users per day - but I cant dream one up that actually works.  We started talking about referrals and DWS, but we stopped.  If we can blend in one that works, maybe conventional would still work.

Additionally to these feelings I actually feel like maybe APS could actually cause a sharp rise in price if ever break through the resistance (IE if the wall is ever sold).
86

I've reached out to him three over the last few months but he has been difficult to reach after covid-19 started. The wallet version was out of date and was not updated for months. I suggested bbp be pulled from the faucet since withdrawls were not possible and it looks like freefaucet at least read my communications (although never received a reply ever).

Hi RD, Greetings to you too and God bless you from TEXAS.

So Ill let the others comment on the freefaucet.io as I don't know which one of our community members funds that (?).

But I did just add a faucet to foundation.biblepay.org that will pay new users 100 bbp:
https://foundation.biblepay.org/LandingPage?faucet=1

EDIT:
They can also claim the 100 bbp by going to :  Community | Faucet      from foundation.biblepay.org
87
Production Proposals / Re: Automatic Price Mooning
« Last post by sunk818 on July 26, 2020, 12:23:37 AM »
I think the mining rewards for BBP should be left alone. Changing the reward based on the BTC price is too disruptive.  Changing the emission schedule will make newcomers feel unwelcome and not give a fair opportunity for newer community members that have invested in hardware and electricity. The mining mechanic is well established with all cryptocurrencies and I see more downsides to a feature like this. [/size]Miners will HODL if they feel they can sell for more later. Give miners a compelling reason to HODL (e.g. sanctuary or DWS) and they won't sell the BBP.
88
1. "613535d6ea651c5b5c3c224ab782409da6a873b8c10dda3216c6da9a6098f7de-1": "       POSE_BANNED yXmJk6MpzoSej7dThs99kLr92Bt6BYy1YQ 1595486691  52832 45.62.240.90:19998",
Result of update: (initially updated, tried again and this is the second result. Sanc
  "service": "45.62.240.90:19998",
  "state": "POSE_BANNED",
  "status": "Masternode was PoSe banned")
error code: -26
error message:
18: protx-dup


2.   "7392277be75eac0b90f2faea5a023565d1b408ecc045a17074d49bc227532a60-1": "       POOS_BANNED yXmJk6MpzoSej7dThs99kLr92Bt6BYy1YQ 1595467363  52785 104.167.116.179:19998",
Result of update:
error code: -25
error message:

3.  "900c710e527cd634ca2c0e3d30d8f0a9983f0b8a5b93964adb1b8a7f5902b034-1": "       POOS_BANNED yXmJk6MpzoSej7dThs99kLr92Bt6BYy1YQ 1595468292  52786 104.167.108.63:40002",
Result of update:
error code: -25
error message:

Note the error messages on the sanc themselves
BiblePay Core RPC client version 1.5.1.8
> sanc status
{
  "outpoint": "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000-4294967295",
  "service": "104.167.116.179:19998",
  "state": "POSE_BANNED",
  "status": "Masternode was PoSe banned"
}

Don't know reason for ban - mandatory upgrade (POSE) or POOS when queried from sanc itself.

Note that any time we have a mandatory upgrade, all sancs that are part of the current quorum will end up getting POSE banned.  This also happens if all of us have our miners shut off.  Yesterday for example I had a power outage here and no one was mining for about 4 hours, so we had a lot of members of the quorum get pose banned. 

Today, I have a single thread miner running on one of the sancs - so theroetically none of us that are at the 0 ban level should increase.  Im going to be watching that.

I see your sancs:  104.167.116.179, and 108.63 are both POOS banned.  The way you can tell if you are POOS, or POSE, or both is:  700=POOS, 100=POSE, 800 = BOTH.
I see your two POOS banned sancs are both POOS+POSE banned (thats good) because they didnt pay their theoretical orphanage bill.

Ill set 104.167.108.63 as PAID now: OK 63 is paid.  Please revive it now.

Thats good you got the code -25 earlier, when trying to revive the POOS banned sancs.  Thats correct, people cant revive them unless the bill is paid first (this keeps people from slipping in and out and getting half paid by sending 15 revivals per month and tricking us).

Yes, I see you revived 45.62.240.90 earlier.  Good.  The "protx-dup' just means you sent a duplicate revival tx before the network fully processed the other one.  That doesnt hurt anything.  I think it takes about 2-3 confirms for us to all see the revival occur.

So far this test case (for cameroon one orphan-banning vs revival) has passed for me and for you.

Let me know if you have problems testing the test cases I posted in the OP post.

I dont know if you run the QT wallet or not.

On a side note, do you like the idea of POOS?  Didnt see any comments about it in the POOS thread.  How do you feel about sanc owners paying for an orphan?



89
Its OK now

In the current client it self heals once every 102 blocks also.  The September 2020 release should fix this for good.

90
Can you please restart the client, wait 5 mins for the masternode sync to occur then after 'mnsync status' shows 999 try again (exec rac) and tell me if its OK?


I believe this issue is fixed in testnet (its a glitch that occurs during load in one of the buffers, but its pretty rare).  It was fixed in testnet.

Its OK now
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10