We have an offer to be on cryptopia, but I think we are 9 months out on that roughly.

I said right here on the forum I was going to re-enter the HFW just a page back, read the entire thread inblue before making your slanderous statements.

I didnt try to find out; Togo updated a post somewhere with some scathing comment about him wanting to double check my Payroll proposal - claiming it might be one line of code per commit or something - and at the same time he voted against me on that payroll (right after I said I would "abstain" on his) another words he was being spiteful - and at that same exact time I saw my votes go down by -38 on the original HFW proposal *and* my payroll proposal (they both went down that second by -38).  So thats how I know it was Togos action, and he didnt deny it when I called him out on it.

As far as your assumption, what you are not taking into account is the effect of someone voting against a proposal - it counts as 2* because the owner of the proposal must not only make up for the negative vote but use another vote to make it positive- so you need double the 38 for example (76) just to get positive, therefore no one could control the outcome of a proposal with someone like Togo for example voting against you. 

No, I entered a second proposal because Togo voted down the first one and it was so far below zero it could not be voted by me.

Please don't make assumptions when you don't know what you are talking about - and when I say something on the forum its the truth, not a half truth.

Also, we are decentralized, and all the proposals are available to view in the core wallet.

There is no one who can delete a proposal in a centralized way.   The pool has an option to only display the newest instance of the proposal that has been re-entered.  Its being used right now by BLOOM and others.  Its hiding the first instance gobject, with negative votes < -10% net.  And thats because a new one has been entered to vote on.  Its a feature for the pool that has always been there.  We used it many times for compassion.


Inblue,  please do not post on this forum unless you are helping another person.  Your personal attack is unwarranted.

 
It's hard to design a proof-of-orphan-sponsorship idea without having a 90+ day provable track record for each miner.

Thanks, I do remember you doing that. 

Well I dont think we should be asking each other how many sancs we have, and I think you should be respecting the security principles and anonymity of others more closely (in contrast to suggesting people hack to find who voted so closely in outcomes - things like that), but as I said I dont even enough to vote my payroll into positive light or Hope for Widows.

Its good to know you didnt vote against it, thank you.

Ok new concept, brainstorming here.
Please don't take this as an attack on cancer mining or boinc.  I do love what we have achieved in BOINC, and in our stats, and I think we are doing a great thing.
This is just a potential concept.

This is born in the spirit of solving (mostly - in a way) every problem we have currently (centralized vendor payments, fiat liquidation, trusting 3rd party RAC stat emission in BOINC, etc).

Step 1 - Create an IPFS miner that provably mines blocks of hashes (called range requests) inside files that are shared among bbp (think leased documents, accounting entries, and Christian video uploads)
Step 2 - Remove PODC and replace the reward with Proof-of-orphan-mining rewards
Step 3 - Assign a miner an Orphan Power level based on :  "monthly_orphan_commitment" amount - based on their personal orphan sponsorships at home, and an IPFS quality level (based on their provable hashes hosts by public IP)

In this system, we receive monthly receipts by each miner in the form of governance proposals.  Sanctuaries must vote to approve or deny a miners monthly commitment amount.  The amount of orphans the miner sponsors personally at home then drives their corresponding "monthly_orphan_commitment" using in mining (if they are voted ON for that month).  The proposal only approves-denies the miner an "orphan power" level, it does not reimburse the miner with rewards.  We provide tools to make it less cumbersome to vote on these for sanctuaries as we would have 300 more extra proposals per month in a dedicated place .

We stop spending the charity budget from the governance budget - we decrease the governance budget by 10% and remove the centralized spending for charity - or lower it to 5% and keep it for smaller charitable governance proposals that are less centralized.  IE individuals who submit individual proposals, but not a Compassion or Cameroon or Bloom centralized proposal.

So for example lets run through a scenario:
Miner 1 sponsors 4 children at home.  Her orphan power level is "120" (this is 30$ per month * 4).  She runs the IPFS miner which hosts IPFS files and space.  Her IPFS power level is "100".
Her block reward is:  (let us pretend 90% of the weight is based on orphan power level, and 10% on IPFS):  Orphan Reward:  9000, IPFS reward: 1000.  Over 1 month she solves 4 blocks and receives: 40000 bbp~.

Miner 2 sponsors 0 children at home.  Her orphan power level is "0".  Her IPFS level is "100".
Her block reward is :  1000.  She solves 1 block per month solo.  


In this scenario, our block rewards are primarily given to miners who sponsor children.  We can make it easier to solve blocks for Sponsors, than for plain IPFS miners.  And I feel that it would be important to make it easier to solve blocks for IPs who run miners who sponsor children who have not solved blocks in the last 30 days.  (IE the square of distance rule - this is an integer from 0-100 on % of presence of miner public IPFS IP over last 30 days).


The very big pro in this scenario is the decentralization of our organization back to a DAO.  It solves a couple almost unsolvable problems for us:  It makes us entirely more resilient, in that we would have 200 individual sponsors per month, paying for the Orphan premiums up front (IE there is no fiat conversion risk for biblepay after this).  It removes the uncertainty present with our sponsorship buffer.  And it frankly makes us more respected by the entire cryptocommunity in that we dont trust a 3rd party credit system any longer for a RAC reward algorithm....    This solves the DAO problem - we truly become decentralized - each individual miner is part of biblepay and an equal opportunity orphan sponsor......

It also moves the letter writing back to the responsibility of the individual miner, and therefore they can do their own writing and printing and sending, and also grow a personal relationship with the child.

EDIT:
One very large caveaut to this is of course trusting the receipt- we would need to first come to an agreement with Compassion, that each receipt could be audited randomly so other miners could check on active miners "id" no and commitment amount, and be able to revoke "bad" miners who falsified receipts over to the sancs....

Thanks for the compliment Tom - It is well taken - I suggest maybe sticking up for the "good" in the forum, when you see for example profanity laced posts, to point those out and help police the problem.

Regarding your statement about control in proposals:  It is entirely inaccurate.  A good example of this is the current Hope for Widows proposal.  I have no control over making it win with Togo's and your masternodes voting it down.  And my payroll this month (which btw, is one half of one half btw:  Its two months of work with one month of proposal - capped at half the IT budget) and its being declined because of Togos votes against it.  

So, please keep that in mind and adjust your thought processes accordingally.

This is a good concept in general, but I have also discovered 'concetrated capital' risk when we prepay for a child.  The longer the span we agree on, the more of a credit is centralized in one account at compassion for instance.  This is bad in the sense that if we lose the keys to the account, or if compassion disagrees with the credit memo amount (and that could happen if they make a bad accounting entry when a few terminations are processed) then we lose X amount of capital.

I am liking this idea in the sense of replacing compassion with home sponsorships though.  If we had a home miner pay for one year up front, add a proposal, be reimbursed.  Then the question comes into play: what if they get the money then cancel the child ask for a credit and run with the money... back to the drawing board.

Edit: Orphan Mining is the concept where we remove PODC, and ask a miner to sponsor a home child, show the receipt of last months payment once per month, and somehow masternodes approve this relationship to keep the Miner in Good Standing.  As long as they are in Good Standing, they can mine.  Otherwise, the mining reward is very low (1%).

Could we have a committee of votes that review those proposals accurately on a regular basis?  With a personal PDF receipt showing up to date accounting entries submitted monthly?


This approach drastically changes things:  It removes PODC, pays miners the 7.5k~ or so block reward for current orphan sponsorships.

Btw,  One who sponsors 3 children would be approved with 3* the mining power.  I think the number could be represented as "monthly commitment".  One child = a 35, two = 70, while POBH rewards based on the "good standing commitment" value.  We could also add a rule:  More distinct mining IDs pay diminishing rewards at the square of distance.  In laymans terms this means if you find a block once in a month, you get full reward, but if you find more than one you get a diminishing reward.  

Thanks, this is well taken.  (I did put it in recognizing that we should have gotten a credit this month with compassion; but they still never got back to me with the amount); so I thought we had a little free money to help our position with God.

No problem, I understand.  I will re-enter it at a discount later and tithe the rest.

Hey all,

As you might know some recent groups have launched anti-BBP campaigns and additional talk threads with groups PMing back and forth causing some forum toxicity, therefore I’m trying to gain some additional info from our user base so I can see what the general perception is from the broad standpoint and ultimately make adjustments if those are desired by the consensus at large.

I’ve created a couple polls to help give me some insight on some current issues.

Could you please take the time to participate?

I really appreciate it.

Thanks,
Rob A.
Founder

Please see and please vote for these two topics:

https://forum.biblepay.org/index.php?topic=290.new#new

https://forum.biblepay.org/index.php?topic=289.0

Please post your CPID and I will try to run some tests.

Also try :  exec utxoreport cpid

You should have a daily stake.

Dear Slovakia,

You have a history of posting negative, non-helpful, derogatory, profane, and defamatory posts on this thread. 

Due to this continuous abusive behavior (which affects our investor perception negatively) and therefore hurts our orphan sponsorship capability, I am hereby warning you to change your post behavior to only include fully comprehensible statements that are positive for BiblePay, or help other users.

This is warning #1.  After 3 warnings you will be flagged as an abusive user.

So this month I added a proposal "Helping Widows in Distress", in the spirit that BiblePay might help Widows in addition to orphans (James 1:27).

I see that 67 sanctuaries already voted against it.  The expense is only $300 and I prepaid for it.  (I realize it could be argued that maybe I shouldn't have prepaid, but I did it from the perspective that if I received a lot of complaints about the org, or resistance we would stop next month - but I see no complaints on the forum thread).

So, is this really the face and representation of BiblePay?  Are our sanctuaries non-charitable and non-merciful, and possibly represented by Non-Christians?

On #2, They only have to wait 2 confirms, then the balance will be available to spend on the DC Txn.

On #3, The simple answer is:  Yes, they must be RAH credentials.  If they do not have RAH credentials they can click the "Create RAH Account" button and get started in one click.
The extended answer is :  Someone needs to test 0 RAC on RAH, 100% rac on WCG.  I believe in our current state, you just need a RAH account (from that create rah account button above) but not really RAH rac.  The user also must verify the CPID matches on both RAH & WCG.

We create one address for Business Objects, in case the user decides to create a business object (for example, if you save your contact record with e-mail address on it).
This is so we can use your addresses public key as the primary key of that record (that allows you to delete a record later by your key, for GDPR compliance).

This is how one user sent BBP to another via e-mail address, btw.

That's OK, we'll convince everyone provably, eventually, because the Truth will stand.  We have the effects of 329 real orphans that we helped for most of 2018, their pictures, their expense records, their inbound letters on a recurring basis, etc.  You can't falsify hundreds of inbound childrens letters written to BiblePay and kept in our SAN.

Regarding the next step, imho personally I would be more convinced by a signed end of year statement from Compassion than a CPA audit.  Im not against a CPA audit, but our current budget doesnt allow for spending a couple grand on something that could be falsified by some firm.  The other reason I like the end of year statement is it consolidates the total to a point in time - meaning that we have integrity from day zero up to that date - meaning that our expenses were provable for a very large time span.  In addition, an end of year statement can be confirmed by allowing one to call the 800 # and confirm the authenticity of the statement.  One from compassion would take care of something like 90% of our expenses, and that would add imo a lot of additional credibility.

So Ill go ahead and submit a request for compassion to create an end of year statement - maybe for all of 2018, or for 9-9 depending on how their calendar years work, Ill check into that now.  Thanks for trying.

Regarding the pandering comment, no lets not be swayed by that.  We are an upstanding untarnished organization with 100% accuracy.  I named the 'exec theymos' report out of respect and honor for Theymos's interrogation, not to supplicate his approval.  The name of the report goes down in history to honor him and I think eventually he will realize how an honest and persistent organization succeeds.  Of course if he asks to not be associated with us, we can change it .  It was meant to be a compliment to his additional stringent requirements.

Let us know if it doesn't work-

These 3 active users have massive WCGRac and very little (but some) Rosetta RAC:
cpid                                                   name   rosettarac   wcgrac   magnitude
ab559f2ce36aab854df58605aa08b50c   001ar   67           231258   22.367
b3ea521e700e89e4fbe0353088cf3f7b   PC           11           158461   15.323
7517487f5568941cb691fd36ff2224d1   MuadDib   79           111168   10.757

So we know that you can crunch one rosetta task and pause rosetta, and ramp up WCG at the very least.

Prayers go out of scope in 7 days automatically.  They currently cannot remove the prayer.

It looks like you just need to try again;( exec podcupdate true).  You have 152K available, you only need 25246, so the command should go through.

I believe when you did it before your coins were not mature yet.

Your current UTXO is only 38 bbp so please do one manually.