Bible Pay

Poll

What UTXO Staking Method and Required Amount should we use for PODC Mining?

NONE (0), We should Remove the requirement
0 (0%)
LEGACY - Lets Put it back to the 0-50,000 UTXO Chart where 50,001 BBP = 100% UTXO
2 (3.9%)
250 BBP Per Magnitude Required to be at 100% UTXO
0 (0%)
500 BBP Per Magnitude Required to be at 100% UTXO
0 (0%)
1000 BBP Per Magnitude Required to be at 100% UTXO
0 (0%)
2500 BBP Per Magnitude Required to be at 100% UTXO
1 (2%)
5000 BBP Per Magnitude Required to be at 100% UTXO
0 (0%)
10,000 BBP Per Magnitude Required to be at 100% UTXO
16 (31.4%)
20,000 BBP Per Magnitude Required to be at 100% UTXO
2 (3.9%)
50,000 BBP Per Magnitude Required to be at 100% UTXO
5 (9.8%)
5 BBP Per RAC Required for 100% UTXO
0 (0%)
10 BBP Per RAC Required for 100% UTXO
3 (5.9%)
20 BBP Per RAC Required for 100% UTXO
19 (37.3%)
30 BBP Per RAC Required for 100% UTXO
0 (0%)
50 BBP Per RAC Required for 100% UTXO
1 (2%)
75 BBP Per RAC Required for 100% UTXO
0 (0%)
100 BBP Per RAC Required for 100% UTXO
1 (2%)
250 BBP Per RAC Required for 100% UTXO
1 (2%)
500 BBP Per RAC Required for 100% UTXO
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 51

Voting closed: April 01, 2018, 09:01:08 am

Read 3641 times

  • T-Mike
  • Sr. Member

    • 391


    • 2
    • February 06, 2018, 06:12:58 pm
    more
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.

It's good what you wrote, the whole point was to give more to lower computing power users. But to me, it's the same thing as saying we are going to penalized you for having too much money in your bank account!

I agree with Togo, if your going to stake, staking by RAC will result in more BBP being staked. With magnitude, you are limited to 1000*(whatever the community decides).
« Last Edit: March 10, 2018, 11:34:10 pm by T-Mike »


  • 616westwarmoth
  • Full Member

    • 170


    • 13
    • September 01, 2017, 09:57:50 am
    more
I think the issue with staking via RAC is imagine a year from now when we have 49M RAC on Team Biblepay.  Yes, the circulation will have grown substantially by then, but the daily rewards will be about 80% of what they are now.  So today, 70K RAC is 63 Mag granting 90K coins a day (roughly under the corrected distribution), whereas in the above it is 1.5 Mag granting (roughly) 1800 coins a day.  Having to stake 10 BBP/RAC would be 700K BBP which today is probably reasonable, but a year from now, quite the impediment to the low power crowd.

In the end I see the stake/Mag being optimal, I would even say it should be higher to level the playing field which is I think the goal as much as anti-bots and coin stability.


  • znffal
  • Full Member

    • 132


    • 4
    • October 02, 2017, 04:01:47 pm
    more
The person from Japan already has 100k RAC from a couple days on Rosetta. He also roughly doubled his machine count in 24 hours. This guy is seriously on track to get 50% of our RAC.
Right now he has to stake 50,001 BBP. Under 10k per MAG he would need
5,000,000 BBP. And if he could he would make his stake back in less than 10 days!

I don't think we have much of a choice but to implement this, or something similar


  • znffal
  • Full Member

    • 132


    • 4
    • October 02, 2017, 04:01:47 pm
    more
It's good what you wrote, the whole point was to give more to lower computing power users. But to me, it's the same thing as saying we are going to penalized you for having too much money in your bank account!

I agree with Togo, if your going to stake, staking by RAC will result in more BBP being staked. With magnitude, you are limited to 1000*(whatever the community decides).

Interesting, I imagine our Japanese whale will reach 1,000,000 RAC in a couple of weeks. Under 10BBP/RAC he would stake 10 million. Under 10k bbp per magnitude I think it would be closer to 5 million (50% of our RAC, approximately)


  • znffal
  • Full Member

    • 132


    • 4
    • October 02, 2017, 04:01:47 pm
    more
From the bitcointalk forum:

"AND WE NEED NO LINEAR MAG,UTXO system but EXPONENCIAL

example:

MAG1= 1000 BBP
MAG2= 2000 BBP
MAG3= 5000 BBP
MAG4= 9000 BBP
etc"



This is actually worth considering because if we could find an appropriate function we could set it low for mags <5 or so and have it increasingly difficult to get majority share. We'd have to think carefully about the form of the function. An exponential will probably rise too fast. Polynomial could work, or my own candidate, x^2.75.

I like x^2.75 because it nicely satisfies the requirement to let people mine easily at low magnitudes but rises rapidly for larger. For example

Mag (x):     x^2.75

1                  1
10                 562
100              316227
500               26 million


Of course the problem is always going to be that people will just create multiple accounts to get around this.
So how about a function

F(x) = 50,000 if x < 10
           x^2.75   if x>= 10


Or something like that.

Just an idea for discussion. I want to really make sure that anyone who is trying to control 50% of the Magnitude is really paying through the nose.

Please keep in mind, this Japanese Rosetta miner, if they get to 50% of total Magnitude (which I would not be surprised) they will be making ~ 700k BBP/day, so even a stake of 7 million they make it back in 10 days.

Ok, I'm tired and starting to not think straight. Goodnight all


  • MIP
  • Full Member

    • 112


    • 12
    • February 13, 2018, 11:55:52 am
    more
Our Japanese friend probably has already 10M, and if he was our famous "botnet" guy (I would bet on that safely), he probably made more than 700k a day on the previous heat mining phase.

Not much we can do against that, even introducing any staking schema (which is still a good idea on itself)


  • znffal
  • Full Member

    • 132


    • 4
    • October 02, 2017, 04:01:47 pm
    more
Our Japanese friend probably has already 10M, and if he was our famous "botnet" guy (I would bet on that safely), he probably made more than 700k a day on the previous heat mining phase.

Not much we can do against that, even introducing any staking schema (which is still a good idea on itself)

Yes that's quite true.
So I can't sleep... Using something other than linear can be circumvented with multiple accounts. So possibly there is no advantage there.

I was thinking though, when rewards are around 1.3 million daily, magnitude of 1 will earn 1300 BBP per day. We could set the stake to be N days worth of rewards at that magnitude. E.g 30 days. Magnitude =1, stake=1300*30=39, 000.
Magnitude 10, stake =1300*30*10=390,000
Mag 100, stake 3,900,000


  • T-Mike
  • Sr. Member

    • 391


    • 2
    • February 06, 2018, 06:12:58 pm
    more
Yes that's quite true.
So I can't sleep... Using something other than linear can be circumvented with multiple accounts. So possibly there is no advantage there.

I was thinking though, when rewards are around 1.3 million daily, magnitude of 1 will earn 1300 BBP per day. We could set the stake to be N days worth of rewards at that magnitude. E.g 30 days. Magnitude =1, stake=1300*30=39, 000.
Magnitude 10, stake =1300*30*10=390,000
Mag 100, stake 3,900,000

So just for discussion, what are you trying to level the playing field. What's the purpose and pros and cons for the economy and for the rich and poor.


  • 616westwarmoth
  • Full Member

    • 170


    • 13
    • September 01, 2017, 09:57:50 am
    more
The pros are that smaller users need to be able to get into the coin for the coin to grow.  With little chance to successfully mine they'll move on.   For the most part, the coin would be healthier with 10,000 users with a Mag of .1 versus 100 users with a Mag of 10.

The cons are it introduces a complexity to the system that could be confusing or breakdown or be even seen as aggressive against new users.

Right now it's financially sound to PoDC with VPN, so the RAC will continue to rise rapidly until that point is exceeded.  The issue is that will further consolidate the coins into a few hands of the richest users as they are the only ones who can realistically afford a $300/day VPN bill.

Any system that is not linear will be cheated by users making multiple accounts to circumvent them, so while I think it is very reasonable that a high RAC user pay a larger stake/RAC than a small one, the reality is enough users will circumvent it to their own advantage.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2018, 11:07:09 am by 616westwarmoth »


  • T-Mike
  • Sr. Member

    • 391


    • 2
    • February 06, 2018, 06:12:58 pm
    more
The pros are that smaller users need to be able to get into the coin for the coin to grow.  With little chance to successfully mine they'll move on.   For the most part, the coin would be healthier with 10,000 users with a Mag of .1 versus 100 users with a Mag of 10.

The cons are it introduces a complexity to the system that could be confusing or breakdown or be even seen as aggressive against new users.

Right now it's financially sound to PoDC with VPN, so the RAC will continue to rise rapidly until that point is exceeded.  The issue is that will further consolidate the coins into a few hands of the richest users as they are the only ones who can realistically afford a $300/day VPN bill.

Any system that is not linear will be cheated by users making multiple accounts to circumvent them, so while I think it is very reasonable that a high RAC user pay a larger stake/RAC than a small one, the reality is enough users will circumvent it to their own advantage.

I agree that the more users the better, I'm still thinking about how we can allow normal users to run PoDC without staking or being able to do  PoBH without having an active CPID. The technical knowledge required with PoDC is way over the head for many people
« Last Edit: March 11, 2018, 12:58:01 pm by T-Mike »


  • orbis
  • Full Member

    • 130


    • 1
    • February 08, 2018, 04:37:14 pm
    more
It seems that no strategy exists for making it harder for "big brothers"
Linear or exponential staking won't work because of multiple accounts.
High stake (e.g. 50000/magnitude) won't be good for small or new users but big whales won't have problem with it.
We all know that it is not good to have someone with such a big amount of coins because if he decide he dump the price to the zero in a minute.
Kicking someone from team is an option.
But that will be precedens and the question is who will be next kicked out?
And like west written, there is no problem to buy VPN if you have money.
Maybe it is possible to track rosetta PC IDs but that won't be problem to change it too. Or invitation system to team? Is it possible? But then it will be really centralized :)
So it looks, that we must just live with big whales and hope that they don't dump the price when they will have bad day.


  • aikida3k
  • Newbie

    • 15


    • 2
    • November 04, 2017, 02:20:44 pm
    more
I think the issue with staking via RAC is imagine a year from now when we have 49M RAC on Team Biblepay.  Yes, the circulation will have grown substantially by then, but the daily rewards will be about 80% of what they are now.  So today, 70K RAC is 63 Mag granting 90K coins a day (roughly under the corrected distribution), whereas in the above it is 1.5 Mag granting (roughly) 1800 coins a day.  Having to stake 10 BBP/RAC would be 700K BBP which today is probably reasonable, but a year from now, quite the impediment to the low power crowd.

In the end I see the stake/Mag being optimal, I would even say it should be higher to level the playing field which is I think the goal as much as anti-bots and coin stability.

I like another idea.  I like the idea of decreasing the amount of stake per RAC with the lower distribution.  A nice benefit of staking per RAC is that the amount staked based on RAC will keep growing instead of being static at say 10 million.  The benefit of a growing stake is that it would bring in a new element to the coin - traders, people not necessarily looking to crunch or mine and instead hold for appreciation.  A drawback of the coin now is that it is full of miners and crunchers-- miners and crunchers are natural sellers.  They have expenses to cover.  This coin needs a way to bring in buyers, people who just want to own the coin without having to crunch or mine.  Staking based on RAC would help to do that because traders could come in to "front run" the growth in the network.  So then buying and holding BBP becomes a bet that the network will grow and the coin will appreciate based on an increasing amount staked.  Staking based on RAC gives the coin more value:  you need to get BBP in order to increase the number of computers you are using to crunch.  With staking based on MAG, the amount required to stake per user will shrink as the network grows even though the amount staked will stay static at say 10 million.  Staking per MAG doesn't give us a consistent supply sponge, whereas staking per RAC will sop up supply and drive price higher.  Staking per MAG gives us a 10M lockup which is a fraction of the amount locked up by sanctuaries.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2018, 01:06:56 pm by aikida3k »


  • aikida3k
  • Newbie

    • 15


    • 2
    • November 04, 2017, 02:20:44 pm
    more
The way mining and crunching is right now is a race to the bottom:  Anyone will add computers to the point of becoming even with breakevens.  Adding computers adds expenses to the miner and adds to the amount that they must sell, thus lowering prices.  Staking per MAG has only a fractional lockup compared to sanctuaries, it won't make much of a price difference.  Staking based on RAC introduces a VIRTUOUS cycle and cures the race to the bottom.  Increasing network size has to be met with increasing stake.  Increasing stake amount should lead to increasing prices.  Increasing prices leads to higher breakevens.  Higher breakevens lead to a growing network.  A growing network leads to increasing stakes, which leads to higher prices....  A virtuous cycle.


  • znffal
  • Full Member

    • 132


    • 4
    • October 02, 2017, 04:01:47 pm
    more
Ok so I changed my vote to 50,000 per Magnitude.

Reason is this: When rewards drop to around 1.3 million BBP total, 1mag = 1(/1000)*1.3 million = 1300 BBP.
This means that it will take ~39 days to pay back your stake which I think is reasonable.

In fact, it is bad for myself personally because it is a lot of stake, but I think it is best for the coin overall.


EDIT: For comparison:

BBP/magnitude      days to pay back stake

250                               0.2 days
500                               0.38 days
1000                             0.77 days
2500                             1.92 days
5000                              3.85 days
10000                            7.7 days
20000                             15.4 days
50000                             38.5 days
« Last Edit: March 11, 2018, 02:37:13 pm by znffal »


  • aikida3k
  • Newbie

    • 15


    • 2
    • November 04, 2017, 02:20:44 pm
    more
50000 still becomes a static 50 million lockup.  For comparison we have 169 masternodes which gives a lockup of nearly 262 million.  Right now total supply is 459 million.  So that lockup of 262 million increased price from a consistent 10-20 satoshi to a consistent 25-35 satoshi with some higher peaks.  I like staking to RAC because it will sop up supply, and it should still be affordable if bitcoin takes off whereas masternodes will become unaffordable while we still have a lot of supply to come.  I can imagine a scenario where the annual returns are attractive on masternodes, but the price because of bitcoin makes them expensive and out of reach for most people, but they could still afford to either buy and hold, or buy, stake and crunch.