Now that the PODC BiblePay Team Requirement is removed, What are the steps BOINC crunchers will need to take to get rewarded BBP coins? Pretend you are a new BiblePay User, and a Total Newbie to Crypto, but you know BOINC ========= Steps: 0. World Community Grid crunchers, make sure your My Profile has "Display my data" enabled, Click Save https://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ms/viewMyProfile.do=== 1. Download BiblePay Wallet https://www.biblepay.org/wallet/=== 2. Get 1,000 Free BiblePay coins from the Pool Faucet http://pool.biblepay.org/ >> Register Account >> "Faucet" menu >> "Faucet" Enter BiblePay address and CPID (Cross Project Identifier), Click Send USER: How to get Biblepay address? USER: How to get CPID? QUESTION: Do you still have to be a member of Team BiblePay to receive the faucet reward? === 3. Link your BOINC account inside the Biblepay Wallet "Distributed Computing" tab >> Enter Account >> Click "Associate" === 4. Buy and Stake coins to receive full crunching rewards To get 100% of your RAC rewarded, you need 20 BBP coins per each 1 RAC stored in your wallet. This is called UTXO weight. QUESTION: To get any rewards at all you need at least 2 BBP per each 1 RAC? Basically you have to buy and hold at least a little bit of BiblePay coins in order to receive rewards (NOTE: this was added as an anti-botnet feature to protect the blockchain) This command shows how much BBP you will need for staking: Wallet >> Tools >> Debug Console >> Type Command: exec totalrac USER: How to buy Biblepay? You need Bitcoin USER: How to Buy Bitcoin? USER: How to Transfer Bitcoin? USER: How to Use an Exchange? Buy BiblePay coins from SouthXchange with Bitcoin, Buy Bitcoin from Coinbase or a local exchange! Links: https://www.reddit.com/r/BiblePay/comments/7nevdg/how_to_get_biblepay_bbp_coins/=== 5. Once Staked, Keep BiblePay Wallet running 24/7 to send daily staking updates and now you'll get paid BiblePay coins every day! === References: https://www.biblepay.org/freebbp/#faucetshttps://www.biblepay-central.org/en/documentations/mining-how-to/https://www.biblepay.org/mining/https://www.biblepay.org/airdrop/https://www.reddit.com/r/BiblePay/comments/97cx4f/world_community_grid_wcg_mining_guide/https://www.biblepay-central.org/en/documentations/getting-biblepay-coins/========= Theres a lot of steps O_O, if we can make this smooth and as easy and user friendly as possible we can increase the number of potential conversions, Anything missing? Anything wrong? Any improvements? This is quick first draft Excellent start. So on the faucet, I think the faucet would go bankrupt if we turn off the team requirement and leave it at 1000 bbp. I think we will either need to keep as-is and let them change the team, pull the faucet reward, and if they want change the team back they may do so. If we remove the team, I believe we need to lower the reward to 50 bbp. So for now, let's leave it as-is, and require team biblepay for the faucet reward. For the UTXO requirement: Yes, they will need 2 BBP per RAC to receive the PODC minimum rewards. |
|
|
|
Unbanked payment missing again.
How is daily superblock time doing? Still hanging in there around 24 hours per day? Noticed its been drifting past closer to 25 hours between daily superblock to superblock.
Same on unbanked, worked for 3 days then missed yesterdays again. Ok interestng. Well so far the strange thing I see is only 54% of our network upgraded (exec versionreport), meaning that its possible our old chain is not forked yet (since the rules aren't exactly 'breaking' rules). I think we will need to somehow know which sanc version created the contract. We do know which version mined it, but not which sanc version created it. But I'm leaning toward the high possibility that since we have barely a supermajority upgraded, its possible an old sanc created the contract under the old rules. This is confusing... { "Version": "Popularity,Percent %", "1.1.3.8": "12; 5.85%", "1.1.4.6": "1; 0.49%", "1.1.4.7": "1; 0.49%", "1.1.4.8": "1; 0.49%", "1.1.5.4": "1; 0.49%", "1.1.5.6": "53; 25.85%", "1.1.5.7": "18; 8.78%", "1.1.5.8": "5; 2.44%", "1.1.5.9": "113; 55.12%" } As of 77000 we should have minimum of 1.1.5.7, Are we not enforcing that on the network? I'm curious how clients on 1.1.5.6 or older are still mining blocks. We had a mandatory - due to the block check rules changing, so that technically is enough to cause a fork and require a mandatory - but getting more specific, in this particular case, the rules that changed are not "breaking". They dont change hashes in POW, and they are subtle. For one we removed the check that enforces that a heat miner must be in the prior superblock. Once we have a little more supermajority on 1159 where that rule is "broken", these other guys will have to upgrade as they will be on a fork. Edit: To put it more simply, we are waiting for one of the legacy miners to break a mining rule, and have enough on 1159 with "more work" to cause a fork, that will lead to a breaking change. |
|
|
|
It could be your nameserver on your sanc. Ensure a nameserver record like "nameserver 8.8.8.8" exists in /etc/resolv.conf. Could you paste the URL that your sanc cant access and I will try it on my sanc? There is a huge amount of information I'm trying to gather together, I am thinking of creating a wiki just to post this weeks update. It works from my sanc #1. Could you please provide a specific error? PS: When you start the ipfs daemon, it should say if its listening on the 'gateway' port. That IP should be your public sanc IP. It might have thrown an error. If you have a firewall running, you must open port 8080 also. |
|
|
|
It looks like USDT is really falling apart with big liquidity issues. I can't imagine who'd want to accumulate it. Did you see how BTC reacted?
Why would anyone want to hold tether when you have audited stablecoins like Gemini Dollar or True USD? Tether's time is ending because they can't get an audit together which means they are hiding something. Well, imho, maybe a group has discovered the effect of the arb in dumping tether. I think if (this is pure speculation), if a group has 100MM of tether accumulated at a cost of $1 per tether, lets say they want to enter the alt coin market. They buy 50M in bitcoin, they dump tether, they sell bitcoin on the highest exchanges and/or buy altcoins with the BTC simultaneously. It could be that they are taking advantage of the tether derivatives desk another words to leg into another currency. |
|
|
|
It could be your nameserver on your sanc. Ensure a nameserver record like "nameserver 8.8.8.8" exists in /etc/resolv.conf. Could you paste the URL that your sanc cant access and I will try it on my sanc? There is a huge amount of information I'm trying to gather together, I am thinking of creating a wiki just to post this weeks update. |
|
|
|
Unbanked payment missing again.
How is daily superblock time doing? Still hanging in there around 24 hours per day? Noticed its been drifting past closer to 25 hours between daily superblock to superblock.
Same on unbanked, worked for 3 days then missed yesterdays again. Ok interestng. Well so far the strange thing I see is only 54% of our network upgraded (exec versionreport), meaning that its possible our old chain is not forked yet (since the rules aren't exactly 'breaking' rules). I think we will need to somehow know which sanc version created the contract. We do know which version mined it, but not which sanc version created it. But I'm leaning toward the high possibility that since we have barely a supermajority upgraded, its possible an old sanc created the contract under the old rules. |
|
|
|
This is mostly unrelated but I thought Id at least mention it as it seems a little strange to me: https://www.coingecko.com/en/price_charts/tether/usdIf you look at the Tether price history on the 90 day (or higher duration) you can see the whales used to trade approx 2-3 mil a day in tether, and this jumped substantially in July to over 100 Million a day (maybe coinciding with the HODL dump). What I find interesting is over the last few days, they have been trading 250 Million a day and the price is starting to break (meaning some people are selling Tether, and most likely buying BTC) - that causes the arb desk to have to buy tether and sell BTC - and then you see this variation between BTC/Tether exchanges and non BTC/Tether exchanges (IE a BTC exchange arb). I have no evidence of this but it seems like some whales are either accumulating and sitting on tether and waiting to jump in, or something big is about to happen. IE possibly some whales are getting ready to dump Tether and buy altcoins. It just appears to me the whales or the institutions might be slowly accumulating tether. The other thing I remember is the article on unusual activity during the Christmas 2017 rally - something pointing to using tether to manipulate BTC prices. This could also point to strange trades being set up now for a Thanksgiving or Christmas rally in bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Sorry, I've been kind of behind this weekend myself.
Yes, so far we only blacklisted two teams: Gridcoin Rosetta and Gridcoin WCG.
Let me say heartily: We are Not blacklisting because they are not good! This blacklist was created to prevent double dipping only!
This is strictly to prevent one researcher from receiving rewards from two blockchains simultaneously (in our effort to preserve the integrity of PODC mining).
I'll be looking at metrics today so we can create a baseline to see how much of an influx we are receiving from the outside team members.
This is sort of a free unlimited PR Campaign for us! Bring on the Massive Free influx of BOINC users from everywhere!
Now I don't think it would be considered poaching to send a few Forum messages to places like the US Navy : Hey you can earn BBP - in this way - all you need is a PODC stake..etc.
If we have others that surely need blacklisted please post, if you are sure it could be double dipping.
The only other one i'm aware of is Byteball, several double-dip with them currently but they offer a team bonus +10% if you move over there. I'd be curious to see our stats as well, how many new users, how many abandoned BBP team etc. With the THOR competition running hopefully we can stay in the game. Ok, so I added Byteballs WCG team to our blacklist (TeamID=34003). It appears ByteBall does not have a Rosetta team. Yes, more specifically I'm going to create some type of report that gives us an idea how many users are in the superblock that are not part of BiblePay's team and how many that are per day. On a side note: The pool.biblepay.org Difficulty report (for PODC) gives a rough idea of where we are starting at today (PODC difficulty = 1700 right now). It will be interesting if we can double that PODC difficulty within 30 days (that would be a clear signal of success in this program). |
|
|
|
Noticed an update on the team blacklist.
"TEAMBLACKLIST (10-12-2018 23:33:14)": "12575;30513"
12575 is the Rosetta ID for Gridcoin, i'm assuming 30513 is the same for WCG, Rob can you confirm?
How do you check team blacklist? Why is GridCoin being excluded? Wasn't the point to get more people to stake BBP for PoDC? https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/team_display.php?teamid=12575I don't see a team 30513. What is it exactly that you see? RPC "exec datalist spork" I couldn't find the 30513, my assumption is its the WCG teamid for gridcoin , but cannot confirm at the moment Sorry, I've been kind of behind this weekend myself. Yes, so far we only blacklisted two teams: Gridcoin Rosetta and Gridcoin WCG. Let me say heartily: We are Not blacklisting because they are not good! This blacklist was created to prevent double dipping only! This is strictly to prevent one researcher from receiving rewards from two blockchains simultaneously (in our effort to preserve the integrity of PODC mining). I'll be looking at metrics today so we can create a baseline to see how much of an influx we are receiving from the outside team members. This is sort of a free unlimited PR Campaign for us! Bring on the Massive Free influx of BOINC users from everywhere!
Now I don't think it would be considered poaching to send a few Forum messages to places like the US Navy : Hey you can earn BBP - in this way - all you need is a PODC stake..etc. If we have others that surely need blacklisted please post, if you are sure it could be double dipping. |
|
|
|
I already changed the default theme to Bezaleel, and heard replies back from new users that the default does load as bezaleel.
What kind of OS did you test this on?
I dont think we need a vote to change the default theme; its pretty much universally accepted that Bezaleel is the best (and was created with Anton to be better than the first generation default release).
If it was already installed/run then the registry settings would hold the old theme preference. a re-install wouldn't update that setting Thats true. Yes, correct, and I remember testing bezaleel on a new windows box successfully (as the default) and on one of my new linux sancs successfully. So it appears this was a bad test. |
|
|
|
Basically, I would like to see two daily Superblocks. One for PoDC (which we have) and one equal sized one for Sanctuaries. Then at the block time, the system would look at which Sanctuaries were enabled and pay each one from the Sanctuary Superblock. So at block 75,040 there was a PoDC Superblock worth 1,077,065 BBP, and what I'm proposing is at block 75,145 we'd have a Sanctuary Superblock also worth 1,077,065 BBP (subject of course to the 1.5% deflationary emissions modifier). That superblock would be equally divided among the 336 enabled Sanctuaries, so each would get roughly 3205 BBP.
I don't see the benefit of doing this - its a change that is rooted in - ? Paying a consistent amount to sancs? Then you could add a proposal to remove DGW. Imo - Ive explained a couple times why DGW is good for us, so I would vote against it. A while back I emailed you the idea of having you investigate other proof-of-document-storage coins that are live and floated the idea of installing their software and evaluating each one. Have you considered doing that yet or would you like us to ask someone else to do it? I bring this up here, because only one person commented on the idea in the forum, and I did want your opinion of it. I spelled out why I thought it had merit but to recap: So the change has many upsides in my mind, consistency being just one of them. I'd also like your thoughts on eliminating coin mixing and private send which the more I speak to people that aren't involved with crypto, they bring up the Dark Web quite often. This perception that the primary use the average person thinks of is so negative it could impact our growth in the intended religious markets. Also, since it appears very few people are using it, eliminating it could simplify the code base without much penalty from current user demand. In the end, I don't want to make a proposal on something you're opposed to as I know you've got a lot on your plate and there is plenty of work. Finally, on the proof-of-document storage, I took about a week off from crypto in part due to your suggestion I find another coin. The work I've done researching has to this point been solely data and not hands on. From a few of the comments in the forum, it appeared things were moving to using that system for internal documents as the primary function, and from the research I've done, we'd be hard pressed to compete on price versus Sia nor ease of use versus something like Dropbox. But at some point, I've got enough Sia to do some hands on testing, and the other coins out there that do similar aren't very hard to acquire (but I think Sia is the market leader and most relevant).
If we could have a volunteer make a spreadsheet of these elements per doc-storage coin, this would greatly enhance our development and roadmap abilities. (I said once before I dont think price is completely relevant yet when comparing a decentralized storage price to centralized - except for mass document storage, but yes, lets put it on the sheet anyhow), but realize in my opinion, the price in a new endeavor is the least important - as we are in alpha - another words, we are designing a feature in R&D with a high prototype cost - the price could come down later. Im really more aligned with making the ease of use file transfer, encrypted secure file transfer, business objects features, but I dont want to rule out document storage either as it is a viable option as a biblepay miner (another words, if we have a second miner - other than PODC, we may have a good backup candidate if boinc ever goes down, or for some reason boinc becomes untrusted by the supermajority, it would be nice to flip a spork and start document mining). I think you have a good point on this elimination of private send and mixing, possibly. I want us to be known as having 100% integrity, and know that using BiblePay they are still 100% anonymous if they wish to use TOR themselves - share no data and use nicknames. Another words, I dont want to introduce things that reveals home identities to make people feel unsafe, but I would also want a coin with the highest level of integrity, so that we are not associated in any way with the dark web. I also feel that from Togos experience of mixing - we may be enabling a feature that slows down the wallet if people start using it widely (as Dave_bbp pointed out ours isnt working well). We could potentially remove it from the UI completely and make it a 'use at your own risk' RPC feature, something for a power user like Togo, but take the stance that we dont support the feature, and we dont add features to the wallet that make you lose privacy (unless you use them, like for instance adding your long/lat and email to a contact record yourself). The privacy issue is tough because as a Christian you have to be a stand up non-shady individual, and thats why I ended up offering the long-lat, as if things get bad (on a civil unrest level), we at least want to organize Christian camps of people together, and as a church pastor, you must publically expose where your church is so people can worship in person (IE church tithing). However, a single Mom may not want to expose her long-lat, with good reason. (Its also related to timing, were obviously not in the great tribulation yet  . Re-posting this for visibility. Is anyone interested in helping out on the above R&D and creation of a spreadsheet? It would help us in our next endeavor, integrating with IPFS by Christmas 2018. Specifically, I would like to uncover which coin in production already mounts a filesystem, the end-user experience, and the speed in which the up-down works, and the reliability over time. |
|
|
|
Oh, okay. I didn't know that. I'm in favor of changing the default to Bezaleel (and I already voted).
Maybe thesnat21 or Rob could do me a favor put in a pull request to change the default wallet theme? thesnat21 bible_pay I already changed the default theme to Bezaleel, and heard replies back from new users that the default does load as bezaleel. What kind of OS did you test this on? I dont think we need a vote to change the default theme; its pretty much universally accepted that Bezaleel is the best (and was created with Anton to be better than the first generation default release). |
|
|
|
Is there a way to specify an address when solo POW mining? I know it'll take a while for my wallet to run out of keys, but I'd rather not have to worry about it, since I share the wallet with a few computers. I'm thinking of using one address for each computer, so I can easily identify which one mined the block.
Thanks!
Unfortunately no, there is no way to specify the actual key. You would need to run a modified version that picks a specific key from the keypool in the miner (or creates a wallet with one key when the wallet.dat is created). Since we are based on Dash, we create something like 1000 keys when we create the wallet.dat file and the miner uses the next one in the keypool. EDIT: Just to mention however, I recommend PODC mining. It pays approx 10* better than heat mining. Heat mining is just a stipend for our block security. |
|
|
|
I'm very very happy to see someone step up to help us (Gin and yourself) while one steps out (mintnodes).
You're not interested in salvaging the relationship? MintNodes has shared MN which makes them more attractive to new investors. GIN stating they will offer shared MN in the future is just vaporware for now. - Mintnodes dropped us. |
|
|
|
Personally I feel technical enough to manually run my own masternode and Im around BiblePay enough to be aware of changes, so I would probably take my masternode off of there to save $10/month in server costs, but Im willing to keep it up to be the on-going tester,
How much is a masternode node on BBP going to earn in a year? To host on Gin will cost $180/yr ? Some investors want a completely autonomous masternode investment. MIP's is close - but still requires the user to pay hosting fees and upgrade the node. GIN's is autonomous. So the autonomous feature comes at a management cost. I think we should embrace features that take Biblepay the extra mile. As Togo said, if our price was 10x higher, it would be a drop in the bucket for a whale investor. |
|
|
|
So we had two miners who had to reindex in reality.
Thanks for wording more nicely. I'm talking about a fork occuring, not necessarily a split in the network. I'd be concerned that it happened to miners at all. What are your thoughts on automated checkpoints and broadcast live to the network from a central node? By the way, the DASH Senior UX Designer stopped by Telegram. https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisadam101/I think this is a great opportunity to improve the user experience within the wallet. There's so many unique aspects to this coin that it merits having a great user experience. That in itself will be great marketing for existing and newcomers to BBP.  I'm against centralization - the centralized checkpoint server - imo it's not needed, imo and it's not a good idea (on any front), in addition we have POW, therefore it's even less needed. On the user experience, I dont think we should be saying we have a "horrible UI" therefore a "horrible UX". Looking at the core wallet, I do see we have a button out of place, and this is assuming you are running Bezaleel, but a button out of place doesn't make it horrible. Let's not forget that we have an on-staff UI designer already committed to do more - Anton - who created the awesome Bezaleel theme. However the more the merrier! |
|
|
|
From: Tristan D'agosta < PoloneixExchange@gmail.com> Subject: Addition Of Biblepay Message Body: Hi, I am Tristan admin of Poloniex Exchange, We have been reading through your thread and are wondering if you would like to be added to our exchange. We feel we could bring a lot of attention to your project from our customer base. We are adding 5 new tokens to our exchange on October 15th. If we could here back about our proposal before then would be great. We currently offer token addition 0.25BTC. This price can also be paid in partial with token bounty payment + BTC Please let us know how you feel of our offer, Regards Tristan D'agosta |
|
|
|
Hello everyone, just a quick question.
Do I need to have the Biblepay Core wallet running all the time while PODC mining? I'm running Windows btw.
The controller wallet (IE the biblepay core QT wallet) must be able to send a PODC update once per 24 hours. So we recommend you keep it running otherwise the UTXO will not go out to the network, which proves that you stake a certain amount of BBP to PODC mine. We considered simplifying this recently, but the community voted to Keep the UTXO/PODC Update for the time being. |
|
|
|
I think I have some good news, Just got this email notification from GIN finally!:
"Masternode status has changed PRE_ENABLED -> ENABLED"
Hey thats awesome dude! Could you enlighten us on the total experience? How easy is GIN to setup? How much slippage did you experience in buying, and what loss would you anticipate on selling (IE did it cost you an extra 1% to get in-get out)? Do you plan on keeping your Sanc in GIN for a while? I'm very very happy to see someone step up to help us (Gin and yourself) while one steps out (mintnodes). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
