Bible Pay

Read 983 times

  • Rob A.
  • Administrator

    • 1263


    • 20
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
All,

  We have 329 orphans sitting at risk currently with a questionable future.  I not only want to avoid attrition, I want to see growth! 

So heres an idea.  I really think we need to consider removing all the roadblocks inside Biblepay (IE Opening the Floodgates) for cancer mining.  We can consider doing this by:  Removing the Boinc team requirement (being the first cryptocurrency to not require a team for boinc), and making it easier to heat-mine.  (IE doing away with the last 4 block rule).  (We can leave in the signed by CPID rule as a lateral move preserving heat-mining security).

I feel with this change, we can test the theory that more miners = more adoption = higher price = more monthly orphan sponsorships.

Also, as Noxpost suggested, I dont see why we cant write our own boincstats report (as we will still have records of our Biblepay participating CPIDs, RAC, TotalRAC etc).  So we really only lose the "BiblePay BOINC Team" statistics in boincstats, but instead we have our own stats page.  Maybe that internal stats website is something T-Mike would like to take on for us?

So, as you can see I'm pretty zealous for success here, and want us to make a comeback.  Therefore I believe its in our best interests to vote on this change.

Proposed Changes:

- Remove Boinc Team Requirement for users participating in BiblePay PODC (this compensates users for Rosetta or World Community Grid on ANY team)
- Refactor Heat Mining Block acceptor to help minimize the possibility of forks
- Still require signed cpid per block, and CPID must not be within 3 solved blocks
- Remove the rule requiring CPID to be in the last superblock
- Work with a team member to help create our own stats report for a website and/or the pool
- Leave in UTXO requirement for Boinc Miners

Desired Outcome:

- A new boinc user who is crunching for XYZ discovers they can be compensated for Rosetta cancer mining through Biblepay.
 The new user loads our wallet, syncs, and associates their XYZ cpid with our wallet. 
(The new user still must have a required balance shown in exec totalrac to PODC mine).

- The user is able to heat mine with the signed cpid immediately, as long as the CPID has RAC > 100.

This removes most of the strange pool errors in pool.biblepay.org and purepool.


One notion is that in general, I assume BOINC users to have enough disposable income to afford expensive computers for volunteer computing, therefore I come to the conclusion they may become biblepay investors through this process.

And, to counter the theory that we are "giving away free money", consider the fact that the ones who do not become investors will sell off the coins cheap on the market and make us more rare.  So imo, this is an economic decision worth considering.

If the idea is a success, all credit to Jesus.






« Last Edit: August 30, 2018, 10:17:57 am by Rob A. »


  • sunk818
  • Jr. Member

    • 84


    • 4
    • April 24, 2018, 02:02:20 pm
    more
While the unified goal is to attract more users, the PoDC is too drastic. Could the proposal be broken up into smaller parts? At least one for PoDC and one for PoBH?

> - A new boinc user who is crunching for XYZ discovers they can be compensated for Rosetta cancer mining through Biblepay.

Too drastic of a change, I do not support. Feels desperate. Not confident it will have the desired result. For example, ByteBall is rewarding for WCG crunching. I receive ByteBalls but don't participate in the community much. Sure, I've written a few comments here and there about double dipping. I emphasize poor children ("orphans") being helped with BBP, but the conversation will change to how you can double dip with BBP.

Aren't there other strategies to use before making such a change? Increase advertising, marketing, and Public Relations effort? Erode the compassion.com cushion? Reduce/remove sponsorship to other charities? Reduce number of children sponsored? Ask our BBP holders to research their company's charitable programs to see if they offer matching gifts and compassion.com is eligible: https://www.compassion.com/donate/matching-gifts.htm <- that could reduce BBP giving but net giving is matched. Less liquidation, higher BBP price?

Its a bear market and everyone is hurting. Have faith and patience. I believe the tide will rise for all boats.

> - ** Remove the UTXO stake requirement for magnitudes less than ONE

This seems okay.

I'd support the PoBH changes.


  • thesnat21
  • Newbie

    • 28


    • 3
    • March 28, 2018, 06:37:05 pm
    more
I'm on the fence about the team removal,  I do see benefits (now folks could double-dip mining on gridcoin + bbp for example..  Definately would open more people to the coin)

As for the 4-block heat-mining cpid restrictions...  This I have some concerns over, perhaps lower it to 2 instead?

During the monthly superblock issues we were having,  heat mining was impacted drastically by allowing multiple consecutive winners.



  • klondike
  • Full Member

    • 155


    • -10
    • October 10, 2017, 09:00:24 am
    more
 >:(

sunk Remove the UTXO stake requirement for magnitudes less than ONE ... yes i can make 100 new machines for free= super,i agree  ;)


  • Rob A.
  • Administrator

    • 1263


    • 20
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
I'm on the fence about the team removal,  I do see benefits (now folks could double-dip mining on gridcoin + bbp for example..  Definately would open more people to the coin)

As for the 4-block heat-mining cpid restrictions...  This I have some concerns over, perhaps lower it to 2 instead?

During the monthly superblock issues we were having,  heat mining was impacted drastically by allowing multiple consecutive winners.

Yes, I agree with you - to clarify, Im all for making the code fork-free, and as long as we can do this in a hard deterministic way (IE check for duplicate CPID in block-1 , Im for keeping that part in).  Ill double check this asap.  So to clarify, you can heat mine with a signed CPID that has RAC > 100, but does not need to be in prior superblock, but - this cpid could not have solved the prior block (pending my analysis for fork prevention).





  • Rob A.
  • Administrator

    • 1263


    • 20
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
>:(

sunk Remove the UTXO stake requirement for magnitudes less than ONE ... yes i can make 100 new machines for free= super,i agree  ;)

Naaaa, its not that easy to maintain 100 boinc accounts cpids.  So yes, we thought of that already.    Those boinc guys dont like having multiple cpids; what would be the use of having stats??

Its to prevent a boinc superuser who is not on our team yet from roaming in and taking over the superblock budget. 



  • thesnat21
  • Newbie

    • 28


    • 3
    • March 28, 2018, 06:37:05 pm
    more
Yes, I agree with you - to clarify, Im all for making the code fork-free, and as long as we can do this in a hard deterministic way (IE check for duplicate CPID in block-1 , Im for keeping that part in).  Ill double check this asap.  So to clarify, you can heat mine with a signed CPID that has RAC > 100, but does not need to be in prior superblock, but - this cpid could not have solved the prior block (pending my analysis for fork prevention).

Fair enough.   With POBH being lower (been averaging 500kh-1mh) we should retain some security.

Naaaa, its not that easy to maintain 100 boinc accounts cpids.  So yes, we thought of that already.    Those boinc guys dont like having multiple cpids; what would be the use of having stats??

Its to prevent a boinc superuser who is not on our team yet from roaming in and taking over the superblock budget.

Hmm interesting thought,  I could see some folks abusing it..  If you're looking for pure profit and have a mining shed of 100 machines one time boinc account creation is no big deal.

Currently mag <1 is somewhere between 8-10k RAC

Though if we get flooded with new researchers,  then it could increase drastically(but less payout per)


« Last Edit: August 29, 2018, 04:41:51 pm by thesnat21 »


  • klondike
  • Full Member

    • 155


    • -10
    • October 10, 2017, 09:00:24 am
    more
1MAG= 10 000 RAC=1 dedicated server= 20 new accounts= free mining w/staking


  • Rob A.
  • Administrator

    • 1263


    • 20
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Fair enough.   With POBH being lower (been averaging 500kh-1mh) we should retain some security.

Hmm interesting thought,  I could see some folks abusing it..  If you're looking for pure profit and have a mining shed of 100 machines one time boinc account creation is no big deal.

Currently mag <1 is somewhere between 8-10k RAC

Though if we get flooded with new researchers,  then it could increase drastically(but less payout per)

Just to clarify, I would not propose to do something with Low security.  I feel DGW + the signed cpid + prior 2 or 3 rule is very high security.  I took a look at the code, and I think we can keep our current prod rule (requiring cpid to have not solved the N-1 through N-4).  The main change is to remove the rule where we require the cpid to be in a superblock with a payment; thats not only the biggest hassle for them but the biggest fork risk.

I updated the proposal to consider a RAC threshhold < 15000 to be our zero UTXO  requirement (IE we moved to a rac threshhold instead of magnitude based on Capulo's suggestion).




  • Rob A.
  • Administrator

    • 1263


    • 20
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
1MAG= 10 000 RAC=1 dedicated server= 20 new accounts= free mining w/staking

And 20 CPIDS and 20 BoincStats accounts to check and 20 biblepay addresses and 20 wallets, right ?  Thats a lot of usernames and passwords to maintain... 


  • klondike
  • Full Member

    • 155


    • -10
    • October 10, 2017, 09:00:24 am
    more
And 20 CPIDS and 20 BoincStats accounts to check and 20 biblepay addresses and 20 wallets, right ?  Thats a lot of usernames and passwords to maintain...
for speculant easy :(


  • sunk818
  • Jr. Member

    • 84


    • 4
    • April 24, 2018, 02:02:20 pm
    more

The biggest impact is removing Team BiblePay requirement. This change brings in more miners, but are they going to stake or sell BBP? GridCoin miners seem the most logical to register their CPID. I feel they will sell BBP & ByteBall. BBP is a Christian crypto niche: highly targeted with a loyal demographic. Others in it for distributed computing will likely not stake BBP. So, it feels like a net loss to me. You lose advertising benefit of highly ranked team on Rosetta@Home/WCG and still have liquidation issues because GridCoin miners sell their BBP.

1MAG= 10 000 RAC=1 dedicated server= 20 new accounts= free mining w/staking

Your current magnitude will plummet due to influx of GridCoin miners. 10 000 RAC for 1 MAG could easily become 30 000 RAC for 1 MAG.

Email registration on Rosetta@Home and WCG is extremely easy.

If I don't have to stake, it'd be easy enough to create multiple instances with separate CPID on one machine:
* datadir to current directory
* biblepay.conf with unique port & rpcport

You can easily run 20 instances on a single machine.

I just created another instance of BBP on my machine just now.

And 20 CPIDS and 20 BoincStats accounts to check and 20 biblepay addresses and 20 wallets, right ?  Thats a lot of usernames and passwords to maintain... 

Why would you need to check stats? Wouldn't PoDC payment be enough (assuming you had the same hardware for each machine). Certainly, there's some upfront configuration time, but once everything is set up, there'd be very little intervention involved. I don't think there'd be that much abuse... just saying it'd be easy to do.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2018, 11:00:33 pm by sunk818 »


  • klondike
  • Full Member

    • 155


    • -10
    • October 10, 2017, 09:00:24 am
    more
but for free staking my rac will be same and my MAG will be falling when will be exists more miners  ;)


  • 616westwarmoth
  • Full Member

    • 191


    • 16
    • September 01, 2017, 09:57:50 am
    more
Let's break this up into pieces.

No Staking for Mag < 1:  Right now that our RAC is 7,566,293 (that is effective RAC, since some RAC is not staked at 100%).  Our real RAC is 3,792,636 WCG and 5,609,297 R@h for an total of 11,298,251.  I'm going to use the secondary figure as if we're trying to boost our users we should get there pretty fast.  That means right now 1 MAG = 11,300 RAC.  That is a pretty smoking home system or a weak two processor Xeon server.  I don't believe it's fair to say that someone that has a Threadrippper or a Dual-Processor Server is suddenly going to start mining BBP because they can do it without staking.   Additionally, if we did double the number of miners, you'd get to the point where a high end server no longer needs staking.  There are alternatives, people can PoDC without stake at BBPPool.com.  The Airdrop will enable most average home users to PoDC at near 100% without changing the system.   Additionally given the cheating that occurred with likely botnets, and the ease at which one could run multiple instances on a single server, this effectively means anyone with the technical skill and the desire to get ahead will not have to stake.  That staking will then flow into Sanctuaries or flood the market, both of which hurt the coin (decreasing ROI for Sanctuaries or increased downward price pressure).

Team Removal:  Right now our Team Stats are incredible.  That we've not been able to capitalize on that is a shame, although I'm as clueless as anyone why that is.  So if we remove our team requirement then nearly every power user will migrate to GRC and double dip with BBP.  The same way some of us are double dipping with Byteball.  I can say with 100% certainty, me personally double dipping with Byteball has done very little for them, short of the fact I've shared it several times with others.  So I'm actually taking away from the return of people that legitimately support the coin.  The only way this is somewhat beneficial is if the Staking requirements stay the same.  Then we likely gain a few new users from GRC who buy BBP to Stake with, providing a temporary boost in price.  But I doubt we gain any more than we are with the Airdrop (as right now, BBP is approximately 10x more profitable to mine than GRC on R@h and WCG).  There are more than 1000 users at GRC that have competency with crypto and a RAC of less than 10K. So without staking, we could see a large number of new miners, spiking our RAC, reducing the returns for current users and having dubious conversion rates.

Free CPID: Not a bad idea, not likely to be spammed as 1 BBP is not worth much even in aggregate.  The question becomes can you CPID with less than 1 BBP?  If so, how much less?  If so, then that should be the amount for free.

CPID in last superblock:  I thought this had already been reworked to be RAC in the last week?

Investors:  Right now I'm not sure what the difficulty is getting new users that are purely investors (i.e., not miners).  I suppose the lack of utility is one thing.  We're competing in a very crowded market, a very bear market crypto wise.  The main thing we currently offer the average user is the charity aspect, but the charity is emission based, so the average investor is not actually contributing to the core mission of the coin.  I'm also unclear on how the possible DAHF will benefit coin holders if one could participate in the hedge fund without holding BBP (and if you have to have BBP to participate, then that brings us closer to a security which is not ideal).

To summarize:
No staking: Against, too easy to cheat
No Team BBP: Against, lose our marketing edge, questionable conversion rate, detrimental to current users
Free CPID: For, if it can be done in a manner to prevent abuse
CPID not in Superblock:  Confused, thought you could PoBH if you had a Mag in the last 7 days
Investors: A mystery.  They're not jumping in now (when our price is near record lows), what do they want other than ROI?


  • thesnat21
  • Newbie

    • 28


    • 3
    • March 28, 2018, 06:37:05 pm
    more
Just to clarify, I would not propose to do something with Low security.  I feel DGW + the signed cpid + prior 2 or 3 rule is very high security.  I took a look at the code, and I think we can keep our current prod rule (requiring cpid to have not solved the N-1 through N-4).  The main change is to remove the rule where we require the cpid to be in a superblock with a payment; thats not only the biggest hassle for them but the biggest fork risk.

I updated the proposal to consider a RAC threshhold < 15000 to be our zero UTXO  requirement (IE we moved to a rac threshhold instead of magnitude based on Capulo's suggestion).

Fair enough,  I didn't mean to imply you were...  Hope that came across ok.