For a better understanding of PoG, whenever you see "tithe" read that as "Donate to the Orphan Fund". The word "tithe" is based on a biblical principle but the word doesn't always translate well.
In the context of Proof of Givong, tithe is not the right word. I think sow and reap is correct because you sow bbp to foundation and hope to reap more. Tithe means tenth and it's not even clear what 10% you are giving. If you mined a specific reward, giving a tithe of that makes more sense. The term donate is correct use of word because the amount is whatever you want to give. tithe /tīT͟H/ noun 1. one tenth of annual produce or earnings, formerly taken as a tax for the support of the church and clergy. As you get deeper in Christianity you will find that people Tithe part of their earnings to the church and causes, so yours is actually not the right definition (yours is more Orthodox), but a Christian is not commanded to give 10% any more. So I think Tithe is good for certain elements of POG2. In addition, even if you are a Christian who gives exactly 10%, you can still Tithe as part of your budget. |
|
|
|
The way I see PoG2 is as PoW (PoBH) + pooled PoS (the "tithing" part), with a 20%-80% reward ratio respectively.
After some meditation I think it can really help us kill three targets in one hit:
- simplify usability
- removing the need of an external pool (through the internal pooled PoS process).
- remove dependency on an external oracle process (BOINC)
So technically speaking it's a very good idea. Perhaps it was necessary to explain it in more simpler terms.
For me it keeps the best of PoW world and adds a new dimension to PoS (I haven't heard of any other alt coin with internal pooled PoS, only external).
Another point of the discussion is that, even if PoG2 it's a good idea, whether the moment is right or not. It's hard to say. Probably if we were on the good old times we would say "it's fine, don't touch it!". So this would make bad times (like the ones we are in) much more suitable for changes.
Thank you for the excellent summary; you "gets it" and its a positive post, thank you. |
|
|
|
#1 - Please put a github issue in; all that is wrong is the wallet isn't filtering out old proposals (even though we have code in there to do that, its not using the latest getgovernanceinfo blockheight for the filter).
#2 - In the mean time as a workaround, take a look at the Date Column on the top of the screen and only view proposals > Dec 1 2018
filtering of columns doesnt working.......why i have to post to github: i posted few problems, never fixed it
We need you to enter an issue on github so it doesn't get lost in this thread. When it comes to dev time, would you rather have people fixing issues identified or searching for them here? Do we really need a GitHub? Some of the ones I put in get ignored or closed. Proposal list has been like this since release. Okay you put scrolling window. Why is proposal list based on pool.biblepay.org and not actual block chain data? Not a good look when the qt wallet has half finished UI screens and pog v2 is going to be worked on. Yes, we need an issue for anything related to the core wallet software added to github. (Otherwise it is not an issue , it's spam). No, issues in github have not been ignored Or Closed. (The closed ones always had a post showing the resolution). Open ones are either low priority (IE less than something groundbreaking) or looking for a resource that You can help us find to work it. Proposal list is not based on Pool.biblepay.org. "Not a good look" - "Half Finished": The datagrid for version 1.0 works, its more advanced than Dash not having one, and I will pray for you to have a more improved attitude going forward. EDIT: I see thesnat replied at the same time, sorry. |
|
|
|
Rob, Creator and Lead Developer controls the Original and 2nd ANN threads, There have been issues with his moderation (and lack of moderation), but in particular his use of post deletions (censorship) Im willing to put in the time to moderate and to figure out and set clear rules (with the help of the community) I offer an alternative place for the community to talk out of reach of Rob's control Incorrect Togo - you misunderstand the reason I deleted the posts I deleted. When a degenerate posts something violating the community rules that is MODERATION. Censorship is when the moderator deliberately tries to oppress the community by deleting posts that contain material information. I only deleted posts that either derided, hurt investors, or tried to expose private information. People mixed those things into some posts and on bitcointalk you only have one button - delete - so therefore it was misconstrued I was trying to hide the main thing they posted about which is not the case. If people would break the post down or PM me they would have known.To this day, the same policy exists and people are getting their points across on our main forum without censorship and we have more people filled with the Holy Spirit now than ever. |
|
|
|
Love is possible in parallel, and replies for things done to me out of spite stir up new drama that requires yet more work for Christian brotherhood and the Holy Spirit to be grieved all over again. But I wouldnt expect a less mean spirit post from you Sun. You have a 90% track record of it, and although you have apologized and made up with me, you continue to antagonize and attempt to bring out the worst. Maybe you came to BiblePay because you were seeking a friend, I'm not sure. |
|
|
|
#1 - Please put a github issue in; all that is wrong is the wallet isn't filtering out old proposals (even though we have code in there to do that, its not using the latest getgovernanceinfo blockheight for the filter).
#2 - In the mean time as a workaround, take a look at the Date Column on the top of the screen and only view proposals > Dec 1 2018
filtering of columns doesnt working.......why i have to post to github: i posted few problems, never fixed it
We need you to enter an issue on github so it doesn't get lost in this thread. When it comes to dev time, would you rather have people fixing issues identified or searching for them here? Right, and also, it's not really an official issue for us if you didn't enter a github. It's spam. all this is spam then ... close bbp and all will be OK...... ppl wont be nervous from all your changes ... GRCPOOL jumped to mining and you wanna to change mining again? facepalm who cares any github? 0.001% ppl from here using github ... omg Thanks - Also, please have a wonderful day. God Bless You - and as always continue to seek Jesus Christ, Lord of Lords. |
|
|
|
when will be new december proposals in wallets? in pool exists,where is problem? thanks
Maybe problem is on your side I have it all right. same problem is in TheSnats wallet too ... SVKNOKO ca you see just december proposals? i see novembers too #1 - Please put a github issue in; all that is wrong is the wallet isn't filtering out old proposals (even though we have code in there to do that, its not using the latest getgovernanceinfo blockheight for the filter). #2 - In the mean time as a workaround, take a look at the Date Column on the top of the screen and only view proposals > Dec 1 2018 filtering of columns doesnt working.......why i have to post to github: i posted few problems, never fixed it I'm not suggesting that the wallet can filter based on typing a date, I'm suggesting that you read the date on the screen and ignore proposals < Dec 1 2018. Once the internal filter is fixed it will then filter (thats what we need in github). |
|
|
|
#1 - Please put a github issue in; all that is wrong is the wallet isn't filtering out old proposals (even though we have code in there to do that, its not using the latest getgovernanceinfo blockheight for the filter).
#2 - In the mean time as a workaround, take a look at the Date Column on the top of the screen and only view proposals > Dec 1 2018
filtering of columns doesnt working.......why i have to post to github: i posted few problems, never fixed it
We need you to enter an issue on github so it doesn't get lost in this thread. When it comes to dev time, would you rather have people fixing issues identified or searching for them here? Right, and also, it's not really an official issue for us if you didn't enter a github. It's spam. |
|
|
|
Let's face it: we have the most vocal existing PODC miners with their BIASED opinions posting here! There you have it, Im neutral and looking for the best foundation for biblepay. Lets work together.
The status quo (which is what the majority of users are doing) should be no surprise as the most vocally supported choice. I have said a few times and will say it here, going to something other than PoDC would likely personally benefit me (as the cost for me to produce BBP with BOINC is exceeding our value...whereas some others have very cheap power and can continue). The bottom line is change CAN be good, but it comes with cost, and that is uncertainty and instability. The keys in my book are to continue down the path it seems like is in danger of being abandoned (PoDC) and work on possible other factors in the background. Simplifying the difficulty of starting BOINC would go a long way, but even that won't likely be enough to swell our ranks nor recover the price (outside of an overall rebound in the BTC markets). There has been a tremendous amount of change in this coin over it's first 18 months, most of it has been beneficial but with each change, we lose some users and so far have gained others. Further change will certainly do the same, so it has to be carefully weighed. Unfortunately, there is not a good gauge of community support as only a fraction of the users have Sanctuaries or vote on the forums. So any decision, even with "strong community support" will only reflect a small portion of the users. Slow and steady wins the race, right now the markets are chaotic, I'm wagering in the next 12 months, up to as many as 90% of the current coins will fail. If this coin can survive, it might be with innovation, it might be with perseverance or it might be with providence. But my feeling is a time of crisis (low price) is not the correct time to make dramatic changes. 10-4 on the status quo, I agree. Regarding the change and the user base, I disagree that we have lost users and miners. I think we went through a growth phase with POBH, and some of them went away, the ones who didnt care about us, but the ones who did care are probably still in the background and decided to not take the complicated plunge with PODC, or did take the plunge and now we have half in PODC compared to the miner count in pure POBH (POBH was easy to start, its a given). On your innovation vs perseverance: I firmly believe innovation is what keeps us out of the graveyard. The perseverance part is a given and required also. But I think we should be known for our own innovation and not known as the next clone-coin. That can set us apart. |
|
|
|
when will be new december proposals in wallets? in pool exists,where is problem? thanks
Maybe problem is on your side I have it all right. same problem is in TheSnats wallet too ... SVKNOKO ca you see just december proposals? i see novembers too #1 - Please put a github issue in; all that is wrong is the wallet isn't filtering out old proposals (even though we have code in there to do that, its not using the latest getgovernanceinfo blockheight for the filter). #2 - In the mean time as a workaround, take a look at the Date Column on the top of the screen and only view proposals > Dec 1 2018 |
|
|
|
Any issue with wallet at the min?
I get "No block source found"
Log is full of these
2018-12-06 14:53:35 dnsseed thread exit
2018-12-06 14:53:36 Misbehaving: 202.97.251.248:40000 (0 -> 1)
2018-12-06 14:53:36 Misbehaving: 202.97.251.248:40000 (1 -> 2)
2018-12-06 14:53:42 Misbehaving: 95.179.177.50:40000 (0 -> 1)
I have tried wallet repair - stuck at 1year 18 weeks behind
Tried the zap command - zapwallettxes=1 - no result
PM
Please try the following: 1. Ensure your clock time and timezone are correct (within 1 minutes). 2. Delete the chain data 3. Delete banlist.dat Restart |
|
|
|
Because we are learning from our past that pure POBH on CPUs didn't work by itself, remember? Remember the botnets and the upgrade problems? CPU mining has an element of greed in it because it is easily replicatable across nodes, and therefore it ends up rewarding the botnet who spent the most on electricity.
Thats the whole point of POG addressing this- POG rewards those who tithe the most by adding them in the pool with tithe_weight.
I don't understand rest of the paragraph - it would need expanded to contain critical details to be evaluated without those it's not valuable.
I said an algorithm that isn't based on hash power. So, any BiblePay node automatically solo mines with a blank biblepay.conf file using very little CPU (1 thread at 1% CPU) w/ an equitable distribution across all the nodes. 90% to miner and 10% tithe to Orphan Foundation. The 19% number sounds a little off to me. http://fortune.com/2017/11/25/lost-bitcoins/I've ready that figure stated but typically with % BTC is believed to be lost (because those BTC addresses have not moved around in a long time). The 19% per year sounds wrong to me to. In terms of voting, SmartCash has masternodes, but their voting system works based on your coin balance. If you have 500 SmartCash, you get 500 votes for a particular proposal. I don't know if masternodes can vote or not, but if they can... it does allow more people to vote even those without 1.55M for a masternode. https://vote.smartcash.cc/You are saying "an algorithm not based on hashpower"; thats POG. Forgive me if Im missing something, but it sounds like you are saying this: "If ABCcoin had the miraculous, its price would go up". Right, this is already known. Thats why I'm thinking POG would have a bright potential. (The algorithms in prod over all coins are known; so another words I don't see what you mean by an algorithm not based on hashpower). "19% sounds wrong" - thanks - this is roughly an average for unpopular altcoins - not for bitcoin. |
|
|
|
As you can see the Sanc poll is showing a lot of interest in pog2! And I am holding off on my vote weight to see how its going before weighing in completely.
1) I think you are not neutral and would like to go with POG tbh. I think a lot of people (if not everyone here) know so. 2) You have an interesting point. By going with the proposal way, that means that all the current PODC miners with their stake locked in PODC (instead of masternodes) cannot express their opinion right now. 3) Which brings me to this point, you want adoption by attracting more miners but do not seem to give a lot of weight about the opinion of your current miners. Seems a bit paradoxical to me. Since I edited my message before you saw the new point. Please see 3. and how it relates to 2. after reading below. You are incorrect. It is a fact that current valid stakes for PODC are not currently used for masternode voting else they would not be able to use these funds to stake (since they would be locked in masternodes). They may have both PODC stakes and masternode, but they also may not, no one knows. I believe that the majority does not. Even if some of them did, their voting power would be greatly reduced because they would not be able to use their current PODC stake to vote on the proposal. No - incorrect ; You have no idea how many Sancs a PODC miner owns. Please, do not continue to argue on this thread, let's stop here. Regarding the live web poll : The Sanc poll has a higher trust level so it dictates the preproduction programming to send POG to testnet. The web poll is for informational purposes. Its not expired yet. All of the comments are valuable - because I care about my users, investors and the community and take all of these opinions to heart. |
|
|
|
Its not true that Im manipulating polls; Togo pointed out the danger of relying on multiple choice web polls and I agree. As you can see the Sanc poll is showing a lot of interest in pog2! And I am holding off on my vote weight to see how its going before weighing in completely.
Not sure if that was addressed to me but: 1) I never talked about you manipulating polls. 2) I am just stating facts. The poll currently opened on the forum doesn't matter since you went with the masternode proposal route. People are still voting on this poll. Close it since it is of no use now and will avoid confusion. Its not true that Im manipulating polls; Togo pointed out the danger of relying on multiple choice web polls and I agree. As you can see the Sanc poll is showing a lot of interest in pog2! And I am holding off on my vote weight to see how its going before weighing in completely.
1) I think you are not neutral and would like to go with POG tbh. I think a lot of people (if not everyone here) know so. 2) You have an interesting point. By going with the proposal way, that means that all the current PODC miners with their stake locked in PODC (instead of masternodes) cannot expressed their opinion right now. I never said the live web poll was not valuable, I just gave it a value lower than Sanc polls. It's not expired yet; so it should stay. It will stay because people are still making comments on the thread also. And I would like to see how it ends. (Not worried about who specifically said I was manipulating - I wanted to express my opinion on how we ended up with a sanc poll). Your opinion about me being biased towards POG vs PODC is based on your perception that I favor POG because I like it personally, but in reality I would vote for POG based on the easy-adoption potential, not because I like POG more than cancer mining. So let me clear the record for you: I would like to use the algorithm that provides easy adoption - and Im neutral about cancer mining vs POG. On #2, no - Incorrect - you have no idea how many PODC miners have sancs. However, Sancs should make the financial decisions for this community. Therefore we should have a Prod proposal for POG *after* the testnet era is over. This will give much clearer insight for everone on if it should be promoted to prod. (Even if we use POG to replace POBH for a while - Im saying this would be a proposal to promote POG to replace PODC for a certain mandatory in the future). Thats clearly a sanctuary poll and decision. |
|
|
|
Why even have PoG when you can get rid of PoDC and use PoBH exclusively? Just change the terms of mining rewards. PoBH distributes 100%. 90% goes to wallet and 10% of that goes to tithing as a split payment... isn't that true tithing where you give 10% of your earnings? Have it automatically solo mine with no biblepay.conf . All you need to participate it just keep the wallet running 24/7. The algorithm wouldn't be based on hash power but some other algorithm that is more equitable where you are rewarded for running the network.
Because we are learning from our past that pure POBH on CPUs didn't work by itself, remember? Remember the botnets and the upgrade problems? CPU mining has an element of greed in it because it is easily replicatable across nodes, and therefore it ends up rewarding the botnet who spent the most on electricity. Thats the whole point of POG addressing this- POG rewards those who tithe the most by adding them in the pool with tithe_weight. I don't understand rest of the paragraph - it would need expanded to contain critical details to be evaluated without those it's not valuable. |
|
|
|
I'm sorry but just by reading the last few posts you wrote, I don't understand how that system is supposedly much easier to understand. You talked about the terms used by PODC as a way to show how difficult it is to understand, but POG has quite a few of them too as someone previously pointed that out. diff, min coin age, max tithe amount, min coin amount, reaper reward, sower reward etc..
There are way more variables you need to take into account to properly understand and estimate how "profitable" mining Biblepay would be and if you should mine it or mine another coin. Again, I think you will end up with very confused people asking why their wallet is "stealing" their coins and sending them to the foundation address, why they're giving x amount of coins but just receiving y, people making a mistake and asking if the foundation can refund them, etc. Also, can we just close the poll/thread in the other forum since it obviously won't be taken into account last the last poll? I don't know if one should laugh or cry over this. Look on the bright side: we are discussing a possible algorithm change openly with people pointing out potential exploits and challenges. It is like a board meeting with nothing paid to consultants  I am against POG in general since it sounds like a lottery (with somewhat predictable results and a definite profit in the end of the day) which reduces the cost of minting coins. When you tithe 300 BBP and get 4800 BBP (more or less, according to a calculation based on 100k BBP tithe cap and 1.6M BBP emission per day), you have no reason to be picky about the market price to sell them. Most people will just dump these easy earnings for BTC. My personal belief and experience is that nothing without effort and pain behind it holds any value. PODC is hard work and pain (if you are not just renting out cloud servers). We should keep discussing, not until consensus, but until a clear majority of opinion. My biggest worry at the moment is that the progress seems to be too fast. We had a vote in the forum that ended with the rejection of POG. A bit too quickly, POG-2 was put on the table with another poll for it (which is going towards rejection of it again, by the way); and then over a quick public talk between Togo and Rob we now have a masternode proposal being voted. Why the rush? I mean, the bear market is not going anywhere, and we are already close to rock bottom. Even junk coins with no features or future potential have 200kUSD market cap, and we are a bit above that (despite all the pros and provable charity associated with BBP). It's not like we will self-destruct if we continue things as they are, right? I see a tiny bit of your point on these aspects, however I have to disagree with all of it in general. I still think easy-adoption is a key feature for wallet replication and therefore mass user count. We had one poll that was shot down for a completely different idea - POG1 - which had the uncertainty principle in it. POG2 isn't at all like a lottery. The difficulty level is given up front before you tithe. If you meet the parameters and successfully tithe, you are sure and definitely in the pool and will receive a reward (actually you will receive 12 rewards for one tithe) so its not like a lottery. As far as electricity costs and suffering, this is the part I mostly agree with - miners will be reluctant to sell coins if they are sold at a loss on the exchange therefore we will have a basic propensity to maintain a satoshi level at or above the electric cost. But is that our greatest mission? To maintain a price of our commodity at the electric rate? I say no it shouldnt be. I think people need to consider the effect of how many coins are lost on average - I dont have the study in front of me - but an average of 19% of digital coins in hard drives are lost per year - and its higher on the percent scale for coins that have billions of quantity like us. So I can offer a counter argument that in scenario B when we have 2000 laptops mining as compared to 200 PODC miners, not only did they collectively spend as much in electricty, but they lost more biblepay coins. I dont mean to say this in a negative way, people have to make backups to keep their coins. But the point is 20% of those users will end up losing coins because they lose their laptops or computers. So this is the alternative with easy adoption. Also these new users become valuable community members. Its not true that Im manipulating polls; Togo pointed out the danger of relying on multiple choice web polls and I agree. As you can see the Sanc poll is showing a lot of interest in pog2! And I am holding off on my vote weight to see how its going before weighing in completely. Let's face it: we have the most vocal existing PODC miners with their BIASED opinions posting here! There you have it, Im neutral and looking for the best foundation for biblepay. Lets work together. |
|
|
|
You guys make a poll remove blacklist to call PODC commuinity to join + stake and now make a poll to kick them away....this going funny..coin.
How about your excited word for IPFS and now its nowhere.The lead dev dont bring to us the stability and trust for his idea ...it does not important what your concept.
None of this is accurate though; in reality, I called to remove the blacklist because I believed we would have an inrush of boinc miners, and that didn't pan out (that was done in the spirit of easy adoption also). Writing POG is continuing the mission of easy adoption. So these two things arent a sign of "insanity" HA ha.... As far as IPFS, make no mistake, Im super excited about it. I have a whole suite of little ideas and tests (I have a whole DAHF block syncer in IPFS that we will not use) but what stays is Christian related - and these are not things to go in the trash. Just because I'm currently working on POG in testnet doesn't mean IPFS or our roadmap is inaccurate. I think IPFS is a future cornerstone for BiblePay, in many ways. We are working on stability! This is happening right now. If you want progress to be faster, send me a few more devs with 3+ years blockchain c++ experience. Right now MIP is working full time on Dash commits - and has exceeded my expectations btw in every way, and I'm back to working full time now that I removed DAHF from BiblePay. Also, God is answering our prayers; we have fasted and prayed for the stability of BiblePay. He is leading us down paths of righteousness that are longer term paths that people with short term greed cannot fully understand at this time. |
|
|
|
Like I said, I have a huge heart for PODC and love the mission, but I still have a strong feeling that we've gone away from our core mission - and will end up primarily supporting new users and science with valuable time that could potentially be used for witnessing/gospel mission/spreading Jesus. And of course, organic growth. Anyway, moving on to your concern about 5 year olds, I strongly disagree that POG2 is as hard as PODC. Its an utter fallacy. I wrote out just some of the acronyms off the top of my head a few pages back (for PODC) and its simply the truth that a new user would not only need to delve into crypto, mining, but also into all these other things that they might not really care about. But let me get to my point, the main advantage to POG is that every single element related to block solving/mining/rewards is within the wallet in a hard and signed way - meaning that new users get a copy of the wallet, they receive 500 bbp from the faucet (or whatever), they tithe, the rewards are given within the integrated pool, and there are no third party pieces of infrastructure (no passwords, no accounts, no contracts, no magnitude, no third party helper sites, no need for support) etc, and this means a tight money supply - all emitted coins are signed and therefore there can not be any leakage or mistakes made (with pools or anything). This would satisfy Satoshi and some of the bigger investors that might be making a pause to trust that we dont leak any coins anywhere. Finally, as far as explaining it, its really a piece of cake. If you experimented with our wallet for one night with POG you would be mining. Its as simple as: 1. Download wallet. 2. Collect faucet reward. 3. Enter two settings in config file (genproclimit=1 and tithe=10) <- NOTE: We will definitely automate these things once we know how testing is working in testnet 4. Start the miner For the advanced user, they will just type getminininginfo and learn about a few new fields (how tithe_difficulty effects their ability to tithe). These are basic concepts, and people need to wake up - A 5 year old really could mine biblepay and get the money for the first purchase from Mom . Except, if Difficulty is at about 32K, then the 500 they get from a faucet will 1) Not be 30 days old for 30 days 2) Never exceed the 12,500 BBP balance they need tithe In short, the higher the difficulty (which by logic will trend towards the 32K level which is the break even level), the less likely a new user can easily participate. This would likely cause confusion on why the PoG was not working for them, and for a neophyte computer user, would likely be enough to frustrate them out of the coin. Meanwhile, a certain faction of our users would likely create 1000 new wallets with 18K BBP in them to get extra rewards (waiting out the time limit as experienced users and selecting enough to perpetually fund the system while it was profitable to do). I was thinking exactly the same thing. There will be some big players around that will do everything to keep most of the profits to them. Although I can't guarantee it will always be like this, in the case of the whales tithing high and driving diff up and spending all their coin-age, they are now out for a day or so (as they spent their coin age). The diff will come down as the older (n-205 blocks back) higher tithes drop out of the pool window, and as the diff lowers it will give the small sowers a chance to get back in. And it may be diff might not be so low to let in a 5 bbp tithe, that is a bigger issue we can talk about, but it should cycle low enough for a medium tithe to enter. |
|
|
|
you dont need to be shark or whale:
if you bet (tithe) N x BBP and win (payout) M x N BPP, where M>1 then it is logical that you will try to increase N to maximum, and if you hit limit (set by diff or whatever) then you will create multiple wallets
i know nobody who will tithe low if he can earn more by tithe more...
Just so you all know, the internal POG pool allows multiple tithes per day, and lets them all in - in POGv2, so you don't need to make multiple wallets. You can tithe 150, 250, 300 in one day and be in the pool with a tithe of 700. The issue is for your tithe to enter the pool you must tithe meeting the diff requirements for that block. So there is no advantage to making more than one wallet. We will have a command to let you make a custom tithe if you want - no advantage to try to send it from wallet B. I feel like there is enough support for POG2 to finish writing the first version for TestNet. I will be working on this over the next 7 days.
(I don't understand your attack vector above, it appears it is not an attack). |
|
|
|
Like I said, I have a huge heart for PODC and love the mission, but I still have a strong feeling that we've gone away from our core mission - and will end up primarily supporting new users and science with valuable time that could potentially be used for witnessing/gospel mission/spreading Jesus. And of course, organic growth. Anyway, moving on to your concern about 5 year olds, I strongly disagree that POG2 is as hard as PODC. Its an utter fallacy. I wrote out just some of the acronyms off the top of my head a few pages back (for PODC) and its simply the truth that a new user would not only need to delve into crypto, mining, but also into all these other things that they might not really care about. But let me get to my point, the main advantage to POG is that every single element related to block solving/mining/rewards is within the wallet in a hard and signed way - meaning that new users get a copy of the wallet, they receive 500 bbp from the faucet (or whatever), they tithe, the rewards are given within the integrated pool, and there are no third party pieces of infrastructure (no passwords, no accounts, no contracts, no magnitude, no third party helper sites, no need for support) etc, and this means a tight money supply - all emitted coins are signed and therefore there can not be any leakage or mistakes made (with pools or anything). This would satisfy Satoshi and some of the bigger investors that might be making a pause to trust that we dont leak any coins anywhere. Finally, as far as explaining it, its really a piece of cake. If you experimented with our wallet for one night with POG you would be mining. Its as simple as: 1. Download wallet. 2. Collect faucet reward. 3. Enter two settings in config file (genproclimit=1 and tithe=10) <- NOTE: We will definitely automate these things once we know how testing is working in testnet 4. Start the miner For the advanced user, they will just type getminininginfo and learn about a few new fields (how tithe_difficulty effects their ability to tithe). These are basic concepts, and people need to wake up - A 5 year old really could mine biblepay and get the money for the first purchase from Mom . Except, if Difficulty is at about 32K, then the 500 they get from a faucet will 1) Not be 30 days old for 30 days 2) Never exceed the 12,500 BBP balance they need tithe In short, the higher the difficulty (which by logic will trend towards the 32K level which is the break even level), the less likely a new user can easily participate. This would likely cause confusion on why the PoG was not working for them, and for a neophyte computer user, would likely be enough to frustrate them out of the coin. Meanwhile, a certain faction of our users would likely create 1000 new wallets with 18K BBP in them to get extra rewards (waiting out the time limit as experienced users and selecting enough to perpetually fund the system while it was profitable to do). I was thinking exactly the same thing. There will be some big players around that will do everything to keep most of the profits to them. Not really, if anyone comes up with what they think is an unfair advantage in testnet, post it. The sharks wont have an unfair advantage as everyone on the network needs the same requirement: an aged coin greater in Amount than the POG_DIFFICULTY level. So just thinking about this, how is a shark going to come up with that over a small player? And any "edges" we come up with can be programmed in the miner. Problem solved. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
