You probably forgot that

I guess we are back to deleting posts.

Have a Blessed Day.

That is just ridiculous that you cannot even agree on the actual definition of a word and have to have your own....and no I did not make this forum my personal playground but thanks. You did not even answer my previous question(s) but you would need to read my post(s) properly to do that I guess, which you do not.

Have a Blessed day.


====

Since you edited you previous post. The word tithe comes from tenth....This should give you a clue. If you look at other translations of the Bible that replaced some instances of the word "tithe" by something else:



Genesis 14:19-20 New International Version (NIV)
19 and he blessed Abram, saying,

“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
    Creator of heaven and earth.
20 And praise be to God Most High,
    who delivered your enemies into your hand.”

Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.



So no, 10% is not just a random percentage by "mainstream" churches.

The definition of tithe is literally 1/10....which is what is in the Bible...not some random percentage encouraged by "mainstream" churches...but ok...let's have our own definition of words...

What is the rule about that proposal (for if POG is a winner or not)? If it passes in the budget like the other proposals? (10% net yes votes at the next budget trigger?)

This is not what I said...can you read my post? Let me highlight the part you missed.

"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."

Can you spell out the rules then? How will we know which option is the winner? Who decides in the end?

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.

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.


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.

Not really sure what you mean by this?

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.


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?

Well, I am pretty saddened to see that there is already a new poll about having "POG v2" right after the first poll ended with "Exploring simplifying PODC" as a winner.

Frankly, I am not even sure why these polls exist. Are we going to have a new poll as long as the result is not what is expected?

I personally do not think it is going to help with adoption or value. I do think this uncertainty about the current PODC stake requirement is probably affecting Biblepay negatively, i.e, why would I buy coins to stake now if it may be removed soon?

I guess let's see the results of this new poll.

This is unrelated to the POG or algorithm discussion but I thought I would share my point of view on it:

I saw an interesting message by BBP537 in the "Mass Adoption for BiblePay II" thread. One thing that I would like to address from his post is that this person seems to forget that the coin needs value in order to help anyone. You can have x amount of coins to give but if they are worth nothing, you are not going to go far. This coin, and all other coins, have no intrinsic value. What gives them value is the exchange of resources in order to acquire them (electricity, computing power, stake, money, time, etc.). It is therefore normal for people that give more (and risk more) to receive more, and for people that give less, to receive less.  If you give nothing (or can't give), then you receive nothing. If you want charity (this coin dedicates at least 10% of its monthly emission to charity through proposals), maybe you should make a proposal, as with all other charity efforts. The charity efforts of this coin are through proposals (from the 10% budget), not mining.

While I do understand that, I am not a Biblepay developer (and do not want to be one). That whole section was about better allocation of resources which you often talk about. I think spending your time on these features would be more valuable than POG. That is just what I think.

This is what I understand and I guess you help me with these points.

If I tithe x amount, there is no guarantee on:

1) How much I will be paid
(depends on how much others tithed in the block my tithe was put into - not predictable)

2) When I will be paid
(depends on which block my block is put into - not predictable )

3) If I will be paid
(assuming there are a lot of wallets tithing because of the one in 410 chance of receiving a pool reward per block - Also, what happens if a malicious actor floods the pool with small tithes from multiple wallets?)

Additionally, I can tithe the same everyday and will receive very different rewards (depending on how much others tithe and the block my tithe is put into).

Am I guaranteed to receive more than what I am tithing under any circumstances. (For example, only being able to tithe once until I receive my reward from that tithe then I can tithe that reward) or is there a risk that I will lose that money?

Did I misunderstand something? If not, I don't understand how you can tell me that it does not mean that mining using POG will be highly unpredictable based on these factors.

Concerning the extra coins, I can give you this insight as an investor. These extra coins are guaranteed to be liquidated as the foundation cannot pay its bills with it. That means a guaranteed increase of supply on the market (not the coin), without an increase of demand.

I was talking about the other features because you often talk about how our resources are limited (and I agree with that). I was just linking to that fact and saying where I think resources would be better spent. Resources spent on POG means that they can't be spent somewhere else.

I think the features/improvement mentioned in my previous post would be more effective to attract users. Wouldn't being able to see what the project is doing (supporting children, being able to write to them, etc.) directly into the wallet not be more enticing that anything else?

------

Not related to the conversation but can we ask Bloom to provide some sort of invoice/written documentation? I noticed that they are the only charity we are supporting that is not doing it unless I missed it.

No it is just saying that I am not convinced by it, that I have not see anything that would convince me that what it is achieving can not or is not already achieved by current algorithms and that other things would probably have a greater impact to me. Let me list them again: "UI/UX improvements, writing letters in the wallet, displaying the children we are supporting there, accountability in the wallet, etc."

Also, what are the advantages of POG compared to the current heat mining? If you're talking about the built-in pool, you said yourself that POG will be unpredictable and promote (and I quote you)

"...the act of giving and being rewarded uncertain. What this does is forces the giver to give based on expecting nothing in return..."

which to me seems to be defeating the purpose of even being in a pool (predictable income) and potentially scary as a miner.

Finally on the extra coin for the foundation (and removal of stake), that might be great for you, not so much for someone looking to invest. You have to take into consideration the interests of all the stakeholders.

Well that's the thing, I'm not sure what POG is solving compared to what is already there and so far I have not seen any convincing argument for it.

I do not see what POG is currently solving that needs to be solved to make us more attractive (as a coin) and/or that can not be solved by either PODC or heat mining in their current state or with very small modifications. On top of that, I think that resources could be directed to more "critical" areas that would make us more attractive to users. UI/UX improvements, writing letters in the wallet, displaying the children we are supporting there, accountability in the wallet, etc.

From what I see currently, this is just mainly a way to provide more coins to the Foundation which I do not think is the way to go or would make us more attractive. Especially since it keeps adding supply (removal of stake and more coins being liquidated by the foundation) without having any convincing positive effects on the demand.

I say let's wait for more inputs on the question and it will hopefully help us move the discussion forward.

I will also add that this potential massive increase of coins being liquidated every month (from the foundation tithe) worries me as an investor.

That's fair but from what I understand POG will be highly unpredictable on the rewards (according to Rob on the other forum), which also defeats the purpose of having a pool (for predictability).

Regarding the stake of PODC....wouldn't it be simpler to just remove that stake requirement then if that is an issue? (I personally like that stake requirement)

I'm just getting troubled with the actual value proposition of the new algorithm to be honest.

Was it meant as a way to make mining easier?
I don't think it does that and would even say that it would be more troublesome to support and help people having questions about it. If I want to, I can easily mine just fine by just doing heat mining?

Was it to have more coins directed to the foundation? This seems to be an issue with the value of the coin itself. Putting a bigger bucket to fix a leak is only a temporary solution.

The only thing it seems to add is having "pool mining" built in the coin but for what purpose? I don't need to do pool mining with PODC to get something (that is more or less predictable) and setting up Purepool for heat mining seems simple enough?

Maybe you can help me understand what the value proposition for this new algorithm is?

Well I was just comparing it to PODC as this is what was the reason for replacing it.