Staking Amount Required Per Magnitude for Proof-Of-Distributed-Computing Mining

All,

Our PODC Distributed Computing superblocks pay based on a researchers magnitude, which is assessed once per day by the Sanctuary Quorum.

The magnitude ranges between 0 and 1000 per CPID (that is per researcher).

The proposal is geared towards requiring Super Users to Stake More Biblepay in order to be compensated for research.

With the thought that a mining organization, a previous bot-net, who deploys 500 machines yet only stakes 50,000 BBP will be receiving massive rewards and diluting the earnings of the small users who are less fortunate to afford that kind of big mining equipment.

In the spirit of increasing competition, we propose to require approx. 2500 BBP per magnitude, meaning that if you are a researcher with 4 computers, let us assume your magnitude is 20, then you would be required to set your utxoamount=50,000 in order to receive full research compensation.   If you only stake 25,000 on a given day, in this case your reward compensation would be multiplied * .50.

For another example, let us take a power user with 255 machines, and a magnitude of 300.  Since this user virtually controls a third of biblepay's emission level, if the 2,500 BBP UTXO requirement were in place, that CPID would need to stake 750,000 BBP per day to maintain the full reward level.

Thank you for your participation.

I propose:

<  0.1 mag no staking required for people who want to support the project and not want to deal with PoDC. For the percentages above that whatever the community decides is OK with me.

In reality some people probably can't get PoDC to work even if they read the wiki.

Wasn't the staking requirement originally for keeping the botnet off?

I propose:

<  0.1 mag no staking required for people who want to support the project and not want to deal with PoDC. For the percentages above that whatever the community decides is OK with me.

In reality some people probably can't get PoDC to work even if they read the wiki.

Wasn't the staking requirement originally for keeping the botnet off?

Just to clarify, if they are an unbanked cpid, one with only RAC originating from ARM devices, there is no UTXO requirement.

Yes, this original UTXO really increases the difficulty of maintaining a botnet, as then they have to make daily stakes, so Yes, and this requirement above is just taking it a step further and adding Scale to it - the old method is - Hey lets require them to stake 50K per CPID but it has no Scale, but with this, its X per magnitude - meaning that one with 512 machines really has to stake a lot per day in order to pull in those magnitude rewards.

I sort of agree on the < .15 magnitude ordeal, for the small user who has One PC or one Laptop, maybe that would be a good thing, but that is the thing that one can circumvent by splitting CPIDs, so I am resistant to agree on that based on the prior cat & mouse games Ive seen over the years, so I error toward not putting it in - so as to keep the chain spam down and keep us nice & clean.  We do have the unbanked feature already baked in.

Just to clarify, if they are an unbanked cpid, one with only RAC originating from ARM devices, there is no UTXO requirement.

Yes, this original UTXO really increases the difficulty of maintaining a botnet, as then they have to make daily stakes, so Yes, and this requirement above is just taking it a step further and adding Scale to it - the old method is - Hey lets require them to stake 50K per CPID but it has no Scale, but with this, its X per magnitude - meaning that one with 512 machines really has to stake a lot per day in order to pull in those magnitude rewards.

I sort of agree on the < .15 magnitude ordeal, for the small user who has One PC or one Laptop, maybe that would be a good thing, but that is the thing that one can circumvent by splitting CPIDs, so I am resistant to agree on that based on the prior cat & mouse games Ive seen over the years, so I error toward not putting it in - so as to keep the chain spam down and keep us nice & clean.  We do have the unbanked feature already baked in.

Yes, I just thought of that same issue so let me think about that. I think it would still be a good idea to let people mine with a regular computer.

To put some hard numbers on all this, consider the Magnitude should only be between 0 and 100 (is this capped because by math it could be 1000 but realistically won't be as that would require more than 10% of the overall team RAC).

So for someone right now to have 100 Mag, they'd need 70K RAC, I'd say in a month or two they'd need over 200K.  The average user is going to have maybe 6K RAC (based on the idea the average user is going to be running one computer part of the time, and even a top of the line PC running full time isn't going to exceed 12K except in limited circumstances).  So even if the average user had 10K RAC, then right now, they'd have a Mag of only 14..and it's going to take them nearly a month to get there.  Realistically, the average user is going to have a RAC of much less than 10K (the number 600 user overall on BOINC has about 6K).  And realistically our Team RAC in two weeks will exceed 1M.

With a 6K RAC (which I feel is a high number for someone that is coming to the coin for a motive other than profit) and 1M team RAC, they would have a Mag of 6.  So 10K/Mag for 100% UTXOWeight would be about where it is now.  I can easily see this coin being number one by end of summer at BOINC.  That would mean the above user would have a Mag of around 1, so 10K/Mag would be 1/5th the requirement now.

While on the short term, requiring a "high" UTXO/Mag seems steep, moderate to long term is will actually be far cheaper than what is currently in place and should allow for a more organic growth and less bouncing around of team members.

Just want to let you guys know: great thinking thusfar Rob, Mike and West.

I had the same thoughts originally as Mike, about letting newcomers with low computing power being able to mine with the bare minimum requirements (which is 1BBP in the current system, but after reading Robs 'cat and mouse' explanation, I  completely see the motivation behind the new system.

The old system also makes it difficult for newcomers to mine as much - relatively - than people who can easily afford the 50k BBP to get a 100% utxo weight, so in that light I'm for the new system.

Complex matter, but I'm reading everything to be able to make an informed decision.

Here's a different way of putting it.

T-Compustick probably did more work that the average person running BOINC on their computer in the background will do, and it was maybe going to hit 1K.  My daily computer which is running BBP and BOINC and is pretty decent for its age (Xeon X5650, 24GB RAM) has been up since Feb 8 and is peaking at about 1200 RAC.  It's probably representative of a "normal" user which I define as anyone running only one PC.  Right now that 1200 RAC would give it a Mag of 1200/700,000 of 1.7.  I firmly believe the Team RAC will exceed 1M within 10 days if not substantially sooner.  So on the very limited horizon that PC would end up with a Mag of right around 1.  If the reward structure is adjusted to 20-36-36-8 as has been said it likely will, and the "full block" right now should be worth about 18,500 BBP.  If the block timing gets to 205/day, then the daily PoDC reward would be 205*18,500*.36 = 1,365,300.  So the above "normal user" would receive "roughly" 1500 BBP / day in the very short term.  I don't see the need to retain/purchase 5K-20K coin to receive that reward as a high burden.  Or put another way, I think the harm they incur is substantially less than the benefits the coin receives by requiring the flexible staking.

Finally, most regular computers are going to grab far far less.  The number 100 team is the California States Universities (CSU) Team.  They have 10 active members, and only the founder has more than 275 RAC.  That is a typical computer user.  People with thousands of RAC are not in my mind typical.  But in the end, this is driven by the idea that me, as a vocal supporter of the coin and having 30K RAC should legitimately be expected to hold more coin to show the same level of commitment as someone with 3K RAC or 300 RAC.  For the coin, the benefits are increased price stability (coins held are not likely to be quickly sold if the price moves moderately), increased resistance to botnets and in my mind...a more equitable proposition (of whom much is given, much is required).

Here's a different way of putting it.

T-Compustick probably did more work that the average person running BOINC on their computer in the background will do, and it was maybe going to hit 1K.  My daily computer which is running BBP and BOINC and is pretty decent for its age (Xeon X5650, 24GB RAM) has been up since Feb 8 and is peaking at about 1200 RAC.  It's probably representative of a "normal" user which I define as anyone running only one PC.  Right now that 1200 RAC would give it a Mag of 1200/700,000 of 1.7.  I firmly believe the Team RAC will exceed 1M within 10 days if not substantially sooner.  So on the very limited horizon that PC would end up with a Mag of right around 1.  If the reward structure is adjusted to 20-36-36-8 as has been said it likely will, and the "full block" right now should be worth about 18,500 BBP.  If the block timing gets to 205/day, then the daily PoDC reward would be 205*18,500*.36 = 1,365,300.  So the above "normal user" would receive "roughly" 1500 BBP / day in the very short term.  I don't see the need to retain/purchase 5K-20K coin to receive that reward as a high burden.  Or put another way, I think the harm they incur is substantially less than the benefits the coin receives by requiring the flexible staking.

Finally, most regular computers are going to grab far far less.  The number 100 team is the California States Universities (CSU) Team.  They have 10 active members, and only the founder has more than 275 RAC.  That is a typical computer user.  People with thousands of RAC are not in my mind typical.  But in the end, this is driven by the idea that me, as a vocal supporter of the coin and having 30K RAC should legitimately be expected to hold more coin to show the same level of commitment as someone with 3K RAC or 300 RAC.  For the coin, the benefits are increased price stability (coins held are not likely to be quickly sold if the price moves moderately), increased resistance to botnets and in my mind...a more equitable proposition (of whom much is given, much is required).

I think staking is a good idea. I still would like a way for people with low hashrates to be able to mine, but I haven't though of a good way to do that yet.

So here is the thing, and it's just me for now. I have a magnitude of 160 and 20k BBP/mag is currently winning, that means I need 3.2M BBP, don't you think that's a bit much? What if we did a log curve? At 20K/mag, we are asking 20M BBP total to be staked, current supply is 452M BBP, which is 5% of the total, if that is the case, the staking is not really making a dent, then do we need to do this? I feel like the real goal here is that you are trying to even out the rewards among lower powered researchers. In the spirit of BOINC, they don't even do that.

Hi,
it looks that this'll be implemented so I have a suggestion.
I supposed that the utxoamount will be calculated automatically based on mag, so you could remove utxoamount from conf.
It will be nice to have some data on wallet PODC tab or homescreen (without making getboincinfo) e.g.:
expected BBP amount for UTXO 100
expected UTXO with current staked BBP
current UTXOweight, current taskWeight
CPIDS
magnitude
RAC
next superblock
associated BBP wallet

And I agree with T-mike that give us some time to save up some BBPs
I understand that current magnitude is not good example, but e.g. now I have mag 13, but I really don't have 130k or even 260k BBP.
I would be happy if I had them
I think, that I'm semi-typical user I have in Rosetta mobile phones, notebook, 2 VPS for about 2,5$/m and before PODC I've ordered 24-core CPU for 1 month. It costs around 70$. It was big decision for me to buy it. I was hardly able to put those 70$ to it (but I believed in it ). But I'm really not able to buy >130k BBP. So try to consider this This is going to be good tool to stop "big brothers", but maybe small investors (or enthusiasts) too.
EDIT: IMHO 5000 BBP would be better than 10k

Hmmm why Magnitude and not RAC?
There is only 1000 Magnitude split between all researchers
Whereas I assume RAC will mostly keep rising
Why not say 1-20 BBP per 1 RAC?

Not to belabor the argument T-Mike but consider this.

A Mag of 160, means 16% of the daily reward will go to that user.  If the daily reward were just 1M / day (which is very sustainable for quite a while), then that is 160K coins per day.  At the 20K/Mag level, a 160 Mag user needs 3.2M Coins.  The other option is they could buy 2 MN with that, and get about...10K coins per day.   Requiring some sort of stake keeps people from jumping into and out of the coin as quickly.  That brings a stable user base.  That is good.

One minor modification I think would benefit all and solve the unbanked issue is since you need 1BBP to establish yourself on the wallet, what if we said that 1 BBP was enough for 1% UTXOWeight.  That would mean anyone with 1 BBP could get 1%, over time they could garner enough to get 100%.  The above 160 Mag RAC would end up with (if they got 100% for uptime) 1600 BBP the first day, and over a moderate time would be able to get 100% for Mag.

Not to belabor the argument T-Mike but consider this.

A Mag of 160, means 16% of the daily reward will go to that user.  If the daily reward were just 1M / day (which is very sustainable for quite a while), then that is 160K coins per day.  At the 20K/Mag level, a 160 Mag user needs 3.2M Coins.  The other option is they could buy 2 MN with that, and get about...10K coins per day.   Requiring some sort of stake keeps people from jumping into and out of the coin as quickly.  That brings a stable user base.  That is good.

One minor modification I think would benefit all and solve the unbanked issue is since you need 1BBP to establish yourself on the wallet, what if we said that 1 BBP was enough for 1% UTXOWeight.  That would mean anyone with 1 BBP could get 1%, over time they could garner enough to get 100%.  The above 160 Mag RAC would end up with (if they got 100% for uptime) 1600 BBP the first day, and over a moderate time would be able to get 100% for Mag.

I don't think your argument of a 5% total stake of this coin will bring about stability. I would say you would need at least 50% of the total coin supply. If you can't reach that level, then all we are doing is purposely giving more advantage to average users. Which to say is not a bad thing, but I think people with high computing power will disagree.

We should at least do a log curve for the staking if this really passes. Also, I hope if only 20 people vote on the poll  we don't write this into stone, there should be a minimum number of votes. Not a lot of people are actually active on this forum.

I don't think your argument of a 5% total stake of this coin will bring about stability. I would say you would need at least 50% of the total coin supply. If you can't reach that level, then all we are doing is purposely giving more advantage to average users. Which to say is not a bad thing, but I think people with high computing power will disagree.

We should at least do a log curve for the staking if this really passes. Also, I hope if only 20 people vote on the poll  we don't write this into stone, there should be a minimum number of votes. Not a lot of people are actually active on this forum.

Yes, we should advertise regularly

Hmmm why Magnitude and not RAC?
There is only 1000 Magnitude split between all researchers
Whereas I assume RAC will mostly keep rising
Why not say 1-20 BBP per 1 RAC?

This isn't a bad idea.
 
Pro: you always know exactly how much you need to stake. If you have 100 RAC then you know you need 1000 BBP in stake (assuming 10 bbp/RAC)

Con: by itself personal RAC doesn't tell you anything about how your contribution rates against other users. Your 100 RAC may be 50% of the network today, but only 5% in a month.

Using RAC would work, but I like the idea of staking proportionally to your percentage of the network a bit better.
One cool thing about it is if your RAC is constant and network RAC increasing then your needed stake is decreasing, freeing up funds for masternodes or selling

I think staking is a good idea. I still would like a way for people with low hashrates to be able to mine, but I haven't though of a good way to do that yet.

So here is the thing, and it's just me for now. I have a magnitude of 160 and 20k BBP/mag is currently winning, that means I need 3.2M BBP, don't you think that's a bit much? What if we did a log curve? At 20K/mag, we are asking 20M BBP total to be staked, current supply is 452M BBP, which is 5% of the total, if that is the case, the staking is not really making a dent, then do we need to do this? I feel like the real goal here is that you are trying to even out the rewards among lower powered researchers. In the spirit of BOINC, they don't even do that.

I think its reasonable to require a 3 MM investment in order to control 160 magnitude out of 1000 (16% of the total rewards of the DC budget daily).  Thats the whole idea, to make it expensive to play if you have the guns to take share away from the rest of the community.

As far as Log rewards: thats the opposite of what this proposal is.  We want to Penalize you if you are taking all the others share.

Anyway, that 160 magnitude wont last long- it will be 80 then 40 in no time!  So 10K is not going to be too steep in just a couple months .

I like magnitude much more than RAC - because its a share of the measurement relative to the community and not a squirrely sliding number that has no reference per day to the unknown total participation RAC.

EDIT: Just so you know the spirit Im thinking in terms of, imagine a Saudi King or a Hollywood producers son who jumps in with 512 machines, and controls half of the magnitude, basically we are saying our DC budget can be controlled by the likes of rich well of entities (similar to our old bot-net), yet with this UTXO requirement, they at least have to pay to play, meaning that if they cant afford it the pie stays divided in more pieces for more mass general consumption.