Bible Pay

Read 735 times

  • Rob A.
  • Administrator

    • 1219


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

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.

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.

Im not saying thats its not possible, and Im not saying it wont be done, what Im saying is a large percentage of people who use boinc have an affinity to keep ONE CPID and like to keep their stats intact.

And time is worth money and it does cost this person time to manage multiple accounts.    Especially to manage 20 biblepay controller wallets. 

The RAC threshhold requirement for UTXO would still be better to have in to keep the boinc whales from jumping in and destroying the small miners rewards.  If a whale wants to split the cpids, so be it, but for the most part the end user would be protected moreso with the utxo requirement than without it.



  • 616westwarmoth
  • Full Member

    • 191


    • 16
    • September 01, 2017, 09:57:50 am
    more
I think the problem is the BBP users that are power mining are the least likely to care less about the stats.  So they are the ones more likely to cheat the system, and they also have the most to gain, they are also the ones most likely to jump to GRC to improve their ROI (they'll have the time and incentive to figure it out) by double dipping if the Team Requirement is eliminated.

So if user BBP (and I'm not trying to sully this user and claim they would do this with 100% certainty) broke up their fleet of machines into 300 separate users, they then could field roughly 18 new Sanctuaries, which would be a very positive increase in ROI and certainly worth the hassle.  Or worse, suddenly have 28M BBP for sale, and destroy the current price wall.

Basically, anyone with enough incentive to cheat the system is going to be very tempted.  And if 8 of the top 10 suddenly starts breaking things up to stay under the cap, then the bulk of the staked BBP will be free to flow into either Sanctuaries (reducing their yield for everyone else) or to the market (putting even more downward pressure on the price).

In the end, the issue is, and again, I point to Byteball, I'd wager any BBP person doing Byteball at WCG is not following their development nor do they (with very few exceptions) care about that coin, other than it would be nicer if it was higher priced so they could make more when they sell.  But I'll wager none of our team has bought any sizable quantity of Byteball due to their introduction to it (so they've not become added value investors) and more likely than not are selling putting downward pressure on that coin.  My fear is opening the team requirement will only serve to add profit takers to our ranks, and revamping the staking is not as necessary as it once might have been due to BBPPool.


  • SVK Noko
  • Newbie

    • 4


    • -2
    • March 11, 2018, 12:54:08 am
    more
...
So if user BBP (and I'm not trying to sully this user and claim they would do this with 100% certainty) broke up their fleet of machines into 300 separate users, they then could field roughly 18 new Sanctuaries, which would be a very positive increase in ROI and certainly worth the hassle.  Or worse, suddenly have 28M BBP for sale, and destroy the current price wall.
...


Only some remark from traders point of view.
I would not be nervous from destroying the price wall. I think there are for sure traders waiting for this and it is a great opportunity for them to buy the dip and get a cheap bbp without any mining effort.


  • jmmc
  • Newbie

    • 25


    • 0
    • December 09, 2017, 05:54:33 am
    more
I support everything that could bring new people aboard  and so I have no problem to vote for this proposal. However I have hardship how this proposal could have any significant impact. From my point of view it will have just a minor tweak, which is ok except BBP is on the brink of edge not being able to support current orphans anymore. Brief look on the order books on exchanges shows that there were less than 1BTC total on the buyers side (on all exchanges) total when I looked last time. Price around 10 sat is also not a good signal. BBP market is dry, selling 2 sanctuaries will send market below 10 sat and selling 10 sanctuaries will send market to zero.

Low demand is main problem for BBP. We need to come with something that will make BBP desirable. To answer the main question - why to hold BBP? BiblePay started when market was booming, it was relatively easy to keep the price. Now, during this bear phase, market is also flooded with new small MN projects every day (some of them are also charity focused). Maybe you say this charity is the key  feature but frankly people can support orphans effectively without BBP as well and in more sound way (in terms of taxes, etc).  I know that BiblePay is also working in this direction and that's good.

I really wish to see BiblePay supporting 1M orphans one day. But from investment and economical PoV BBP doesn't make any sense. Inflation (even though it's declining in time) is drastic and 10% sell-off of newly created BBP will always undermine the price, ie. also demand. And not the forget other expenses that are doing the same. I believe we need to start with more sound economical model here. Sound economy brings sound investors. In Bible, tithes are 10% of real profit, not value of 10% of newly created coins even during a loss period. I believe BBP should give 10% of profits to orphans - I mean real profits and at the same time to generate reserves for time of bear market (Joseph's approach). We need to calculate our BBP profits based on BBP/USD performance, not based no how much new BBP are generated.

Difficult thing is that BBP already supports 300 orphans although size and performance of the projects is way to small for this size of support. Now a miracle (strong philanthropist investor or strong crypto bull market) is needed to keep them supported.

I believe there are two ways. Either some miracle happens and I'm all for that or/and we must rethink our economy model to make it more sustainable (ie. spend newly generated BBP only when price grows enough and create reserves for worse times) and to bring some killer feature kicking up demand in general that would bring the project into TOP100 crypto projects. Although adjusting economy model is relatively easy tasks, to bring some excellent feature is not. On the other hand, sound economical model is valuable feature as well imho.

That's my two cents. I believe God is backing up this project and Lord Jesus will not let it fall but I also believe that economical side of the project needs to be properly adjusted and sound from broader perspective. And sorry I went little bit further from the main topic here.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2018, 03:24:56 am by jmmc »


  • Rob A.
  • Administrator

    • 1219


    • 20
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
"That's my two cents. I believe God is backing up this project and Lord Jesus will not let it fall but I also believe that economical side of the project needs to be properly adjusted and sound from broader perspective. And sorry I went little bit further from the main topic here."

Amen brother.



  • talisman
  • Newbie

    • 1


    • 1
    • March 26, 2018, 07:42:24 am
    more
I think the problem is the BBP users that are power mining are the least likely to care less about the stats.  So they are the ones more likely to cheat the system, and they also have the most to gain, they are also the ones most likely to jump to GRC to improve their ROI (they'll have the time and incentive to figure it out) by double dipping if the Team Requirement is eliminated.

So if user BBP (and I'm not trying to sully this user and claim they would do this with 100% certainty) broke up their fleet of machines into 300 separate users, they then could field roughly 18 new Sanctuaries, which would be a very positive increase in ROI and certainly worth the hassle.  Or worse, suddenly have 28M BBP for sale, and destroy the current price wall.

Basically, anyone with enough incentive to cheat the system is going to be very tempted.  And if 8 of the top 10 suddenly starts breaking things up to stay under the cap, then the bulk of the staked BBP will be free to flow into either Sanctuaries (reducing their yield for everyone else) or to the market (putting even more downward pressure on the price).

In the end, the issue is, and again, I point to Byteball, I'd wager any BBP person doing Byteball at WCG is not following their development nor do they (with very few exceptions) care about that coin, other than it would be nicer if it was higher priced so they could make more when they sell.  But I'll wager none of our team has bought any sizable quantity of Byteball due to their introduction to it (so they've not become added value investors) and more likely than not are selling putting downward pressure on that coin.  My fear is opening the team requirement will only serve to add profit takers to our ranks, and revamping the staking is not as necessary as it once might have been due to BBPPool.

Dear All,

Here is the executive summary of what I will say: "I strongly second to what West says."

Here is the content for more curious:

I came over to BBP from Gridcoin. Used to crunch about 3-4% of the project credits then with all my CPUs and GPUs dedicated to Boinc. I might say I was in that community (silently) since my day 2 of crypto mining. I like the idea of earning crypto through distributed computing since we are helping science and not simply burning power and crunching crypto puzzles. Then again, GRC profitability fell deeply in Feb-March and I started seeking for alternatives. This was about the time you were switching over to PoDC, Made my math, converted some of my coins for collateral, and been following the development since then. I actually feel even better than in GRC times, since this project also benefits orphans on top of helping scientists. I consider that double-dipping in the sense of being good and giving.

I am not a Christian, yet I believe Jesus is a prophet. I am not sharing pro-Trump sentiments, but -believe it or not- when I see on the wallet that someone is requesting prayers for their loved ones' healing, I do pray for them. This , I think, is a third way of good this coin is doing. God is Love, for anyone and anything.

See, I am both an investor and believer in PART of the causes of this coin. With all sincerity, I am asking you guys not to lift the stake requirement. First thing you will see then is, people dismantling accounts to release the coins required for staking. I know I will do. All my machines are home-built and home-maintained, and reformatting everything and starting to crunch Boinc under a new account takes approx. 90 minutes per machine. Then I will start double-dipping with GRC. Hard to believe there aren't other computer-savvy guys that will do the same. Now, I do not have an intention if that happens to sell all my coins and go away (will probably setup masternodes with the released coins), but there is no telling what these other guys will do (dumping, OMG!!).

As a summary, lifting the team requirement will not hurt us, but lifting the stake requirement may turn fatal.

I wished to remain a silent member of this community, but now I see the future of the orphans and my investment are at stake, and decided to drop my bit on the table.

I believe what will push this project beyond the limits of the bear market and provide long-term growth is adoption by the ordinary people (shoppers, or donators that do not even need to maintain a wallet and know the internals of the algorithm - not the miners).

I have been tinkering about a real-world use case that would enable shopping with certain cryptocoins with extra discount (BBP may be one of them), that has potential to increase adoption rate and thus create demand for the favored coins. Will let you know if it ever flies.

Best Regards, and Vaya con Dios :)


  • Rob A.
  • Administrator

    • 1219


    • 20
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Maybe we should consider doing one thing at a time and keeping the UTXO requirement but remove the team only for now.

I'll update the proposal to reflect removing the team only, but leaving in the UTXO.

This way as people come over from BOINC, they will have to buy BBP to mine.



  • T-Mike
  • Sr. Member

    • 395


    • 3
    • February 06, 2018, 06:12:58 pm
    more
Difficult thing is that BBP already supports 300 orphans although size and performance of the projects is way to small for this size of support. Now a miracle (strong philanthropist investor or strong crypto bull market) is needed to keep them supported.

Yes, I think we should try getting some philanthropists involved and that in turn will hopefully allow us to run marketing campaigns.

I suppose if we just allow double dipping it will be ok, doesn't seem like Gridcoin's stats are helping them in any way. The whole stat thing I believe is just for generating a want for higher RAC and making it into a competition so that you would want to rise in rank and beat others. Of course that's not the case for everyone and most of the smaller users probably don't even care about the stats.


  • thesnat21
  • Newbie

    • 23


    • 0
    • March 28, 2018, 06:37:05 pm
    more
I dunno .. the more I think about it the more I think we need to take a step back.

I'm not for making changes this drastic without giving it some time to settle and looking at other options.

I've been working for months to get enough for staking my PODC,   gradually increasing my payout.

I think opening the floodgate will alienate most core users.   Lower rewards significantly, and adding more sell pressure.

I don't see how this will help us long-term.

The other option I thought of if this has to go through,   is limit the contribution from anyone non-bbp grouped.
 say 10% of their RAC is applied?  (Large miners would be fine with this)   Think of it like Byteball does for WCG.   They give some credit but it's not meant to be a replacement.




  • togoshigekata
  • Sr. Member

    • 333


    • 19
    • September 01, 2017, 10:21:10 am
    • USA
    more
"The only thing so far I dont like about the proposal is what West mentioned about 'double dipping'.  I never did like that possibility.  We could offer the ability to create a spork that contains a string of blacklisted team numbers (and I mean in no way any disrespect to the teams, this is precisely to prevent double dipping).  Any team that is alerted on the forum of paying in another crypto for the same work could be added to the key (IE blacklisted) and that would prevent double dipping, except where other coins like BiblePay do not require a team.   Another words:  users who are part of a blacklisted team are not compensated in bbp." -Rob

References:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2388064.msg44919797#msg44919797
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2388064.msg44931180#msg44931180

Is a team blacklist feature part of this proposal?
and do we have a list of teams to start off on the blacklist?


  • sunk818
  • Jr. Member

    • 75


    • 1
    • April 24, 2018, 02:02:20 pm
    more
This proposal feels a bit rushed and keeps changing based on discussion on BTC Talk. Its not clear what the proposal actually is for now and what changes will occur if the proposal changes. Should production proposals even be allowed to be revised? If so, revision history (like git commits) seem important so we know what changes are made and change yes/no votes accordingly.


  • capo
  • Newbie

    • 6


    • 0
    • March 11, 2018, 07:02:14 am
    more
is double dipping so bad? i think this could be one of most attractive features of our coin :)


  • 616westwarmoth
  • Full Member

    • 191


    • 16
    • September 01, 2017, 09:57:50 am
    more
TLDR: I fell it's unlikely we'd gain more than 1.5M Team RAC at the most wildly generous numbers.  This would, if fully staked, add only 30M BBP demand for the coin, which is roughly 1 month of average volume/15 days of newly minted coins.

So, here is my logic on why removing the Team Requirement is not going to help.

First off, as a holder and big PoDC miner of BBP, there are two conflicting thoughts that present before considering the actual primary issue. The first is if the BBP Team Requirement (which I'll save some typing and call BBP-TR) is removed, but we also ban other coin teams (basically Gridcoin and Byteball) then one of two things could happen. One, nothing.  Two, we could spike our RAC.  A spike in Team RAC would make mining unprofitable for most if not all current users unless you had some unique advantage such as dirt cheap power.  So the current miners, like myself would drop out.  So we'd need a HUGE spike to offset this. If we did see a huge spike in RAC and that corresponded to a similar long-term increase in price, then as a big holder, I should welcome this. Sure I wouldn't be mining anymore but, in silly terms, if price went up 100x because the RAC went up 200x, then I'm coming out great!

The issue is this. Look at Byteball. There is no team requirement, in fact wasn't even a Byteball Team for the longest time, and the benefit for being on the team is still small. I'm currently receiving the 11th largest daily distribution at Byteball. Five of the users receiving more are on Team BBP. Three of the users receiving more are the three GRC-pool accounts (which I'm wagering found out about it because of BBP, since BBP-pool is below me). So, in short, I can only account for two users getting more Byteball than me.  But I've got little clue about the coin despite the fact I'm in the top 11.  I'd wager the rest of the other BBP users don't know much about it either and are either 1) cashing out when they mine or 2) hoping for a price increase since this is basically "free" coins. 

So the question becomes,  where are all the team members from Hard[OCP], US Navy, Oracle, Overclock Forums, etc?  Why are they not participating in Byteball? I don't see them in any large numbers (at least in coins rewarded, since again, I've got most the top 10 covered and the top 10 is about half the reward),  Byteball is incredibly easy to set up. It's trivial enough I think my beginner computer friends could get linked to Byteball following the instructions. However, none of them would be able to figure out our coin without help, and then the issue of buying crytpo to stake, would end that discussion. So I don't think (if we block Team Gridcoin and Team Byteball) we'll see many new users from this, since the most crypto savvy ones are going to be blocked. And the rest of the teams, as evidenced by their non-participation in Byteball, which has far less complexity, are not interested.  Or maybe because in part, most of the big teams, don't do much CPU BOINC.

But that thought aside, let's look at some very hard numbers.  If we could get a 1% conversion rate, that is, by removing the BBP-TR, we would get 1% of the overall user base to become BBP users and fully stake their mining, what would that really mean?  (and for the record I think 1% is way too high).  At R@h, we're anywhere between 15-20% of the daily work done, Gridcoin is usually about 10%.  Yesterday the two teams combined accounted for roughly 29% of the work at R@h.  So if we got 1% of the remaining 71% that would be 225K RAC.  At World Community Grid, we're about 3%, Gridcoin is about 4.6% and Byteball is about .5%.  So between all three projects we're basically 8% of the total.  Again, if we could get 1% of the remaining 92% that's about 1.2M RAC.  Even rounding up we're looking at, again in my opinion of the best case, roughly 1.5M RAC added to our team.  That would create demand for 30M BBP to stake, which is roughly 1 month of our average volume, or about 15 days worth of newly minted coins.   How would that affect us?  Who knows, but probably not by more than a few satoshi of value in the medium term.

In the end, the market is poor all around.  We've overextended our support of orphans given the fall in price.  Removing the BBP-TR is removing one of the potential major marketing points of the coin, the hard and fast numbers of how many people we've added to the cause of scientific research.  How many we can lay exclusive claim to for being on BOINC.  We're the number 3 team ALL TIME at Rosetta@home, set to be number two by mid-October.  And number one in RAC there.  We're number 89 all time at World Community Grid and should break into the top 50 by the end of the year, all while being the fifth highest there in RAC.  Giving up that potential marketing angle for what I suspect will be a pittance of users seems not worth the effort.  And using that programming time (however small) seems to be a poor use of resources in an increasingly lean time.


  • klondike
  • Full Member

    • 150


    • -8
    • October 10, 2017, 09:00:24 am
    more
wait......if will be blocking GRC will be blocking BYTEBALL?  noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo .....


  • jaapgvk
  • Hero Member

    • 571


    • 22
    • September 01, 2017, 08:02:57 pm
    • Netherlands
    more
So, just to make sure. Currently this proposal is now only for removal of the team-requirement. This will also involve blacklisting some teams (e.g. Gridcoin) and giving a penalty if you are not in team BiblePay (e.g. 50%).