Bible Pay

Read 1402 times

  • MIP
  • Developer

    • 223


    • 26
    • February 13, 2018, 11:55:52 am
    more
Re: Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2019, 11:29:21 am »
No ... This is not "Fairer", as someone who is happy with any of the options could vote 3 times, and have their vote counted 3x.
...
The way to approach that would be to start with a single poll, "Should we raise the cost of a sanctuary"  get a yes/no on that before trying to figure out which level to raise it to.

Yes, that would definitely be more precise. Because I am for 1 of the 3 options and I wouldn't vote up any of the other 3, but neither would I vote them down.


  • Rob Andrews
  • Administrator

    • 2012


    • 27
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Re: Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2019, 03:26:17 pm »
Yes, that would definitely be more precise. Because I am for 1 of the 3 options and I wouldn't vote up any of the other 3, but neither would I vote them down.
No, but putting in a poll to raise or not is equal to the responsible sancs voting all 3 options down.  We dont need one to see if people will raise first.

I don't think an error was made here.



  • inblue
  • Newbie

    • 37


    • 3
    • December 20, 2017, 03:41:42 pm
    more
Re: Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« Reply #17 on: April 09, 2019, 12:40:48 pm »
Because I am for 1 of the 3 options and I wouldn't vote up any of the other 3, but neither would I vote them down.

Exactly because of this, I'd argue it's best to vote "abstain" on the other two options, because that makes it transparent that you didn't vote "yes" on those too, but that you are participating in the vote for one of the three.


  • sunk818
  • Full Member

    • 233


    • 7
    • April 24, 2018, 02:02:20 pm
Re: Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2019, 05:14:57 pm »
Exactly because of this, I'd argue it's best to vote "abstain" on the other two options, because that makes it transparent that you didn't vote "yes" on those too, but that you are participating in the vote for one of the three.


You vote based on the merits of the individual proposal irrespective of what surrounds it. The proposals aren't dependent on each other. They just happen to all be posted in the same monthly superblock, but I'm voting as if each proposal was added on separate superblocks. How could you vote otherwise since there was no prior discussion?


  • oncoapop
  • Jr. Member

    • 73


    • 9
    • October 23, 2018, 12:31:17 pm
    more
Re: Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« Reply #19 on: April 11, 2019, 04:58:18 pm »
I wonder if the consolidation can be achieved in an alternative way (as maybe others have suggested in other forums) that is to allow for multiple masternodes on a single host? That would mean allowing each sanc to use a different port. I donít know if that is worth considering or even technically possible.


  • sunk818
  • Full Member

    • 233


    • 7
    • April 24, 2018, 02:02:20 pm
Re: Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« Reply #20 on: April 11, 2019, 06:16:47 pm »
I wonder if the consolidation can be achieved in an alternative way (as maybe others have suggested in other forums) that is to allow for multiple masternodes on a single host? That would mean allowing each sanc to use a different port. I donít know if that is worth considering or even technically possible.


It is something I've been trying to do recently, but have had difficulty compiling from source. Evo 1.4 is different enough from 1.2 that I've hit a few stumbling blocks. I know one coin where the user has 32 masternodes on one IP utilizing different ports.


  • thesnat21
  • Administrator

    • 163


    • 15
    • March 28, 2018, 06:37:05 pm
    more
Re: Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2019, 10:07:51 am »
I wonder if the consolidation can be achieved in an alternative way (as maybe others have suggested in other forums) that is to allow for multiple masternodes on a single host? That would mean allowing each sanc to use a different port. I donít know if that is worth considering or even technically possible.

currently the masternode port is hard-coded into the source.  If I read it right it won't consider a masternode at any other port.

This could be changed, but is a risk I think,   


  • sunk818
  • Full Member

    • 233


    • 7
    • April 24, 2018, 02:02:20 pm
Re: Consolidation of Sanctuaries
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2019, 12:45:16 am »
I see 25 masternodes got made in the last 24 hours And voted yes by one person. More than saving hosting fees, the priority seems to be a desire to maintain control and power. You raise MN cost to 4.5M and that makes it 3x as difficult for newcomers to buy enough bbp for a MN.

Vps cost less than $1/mo.

If you want diversity and the ability to voice an opinion, make the MN cost 750k bbp instead.