Couple of questions:

What does the balances sent entry mean?

Status:

   Aeon:          43
   Generation:    904592069
   Online:        0
   TX recvd:        0
   Balances sent:   3
   Blocks solved:   0
   Blocks updated:  467
   Haiku/second:    0

Current block: 0x0000000000002bd4
Difficulty:    48

Is it still worth it to mine this coin with CPUs?

How long should it take to receive a payment?

I think it's funny we're trying to get more miners when mining isn't even profitable now.

I think most merchants won't even accept a crypto that has any volatility whatsoever.  I think most would only accept a stable coin.  I have had bitcoin change in value by more than 2% while transferring it and greater than 2% loss is uncompetitive with credit card merchant fees.  A lot of merchant profit margins are less then 5%.  They literally can't afford the risk of a change in price during the transfer from agreement of price to the value of actual receipt and being able to lock in the value.

Yes.  20% is too steep.  It should be more like a 2% discount so someone with $100,000 could make $2,000 in market making per day given enough volume.  That is actually one of the key features is that market making should add to the liquidity: the liquidity is a major problem with BBP, but if you added the stable coin feature this way it would help to bring in liquidity.  I can explain in a little more detail but I need to know if Rob is even interested.  Otherwise forget it, I'll go somewhere else.

The idea is to burn coins to create a stable coin that can be spent or used to accumulate BBP without having to convert to Bitcoin. 

Would you want to accept BBP, BTC or any other cryptocurrency for your goods or services knowing it could drop by 2%,5%,10% or more from the time you accepted the payment until the time you are able to cash out to fiat?

My belief is that coins that incorporate a stable coin feature are the future of cryptocurrencies and those that don't will mostly have a harder time staying relevant. 

Rob, what are your thoughts on adding a stable coin feature?

Then do the math (nextsuperblock-current block) *7 minutes

Tether is suspected to be not fully backed by dollars and Bitfinex dissolved the relationship with their auditor.  https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/bitfinex-and-tether-is-unauditable-why-they-will-never-do-a-real-audit-3324e002b185
Tether is widely regarded to be something between a scam and shady, but not proven so yet.  

Do you want to force merchants to accept BBP and then have to immediately change it to BTC and then fiat?  What if BTC crashes by $100, $200, $1,000 or more while the merchant is waiting for the transaction?  Instead either the merchant can directly convert the BBP to BBPD or the purchaser can convert the BBP to BBPD to make the purchase.  TrueUSD is just tokenized dollars; a token backed by USD like what Tether is supposed to be.  DAI doesn't do what I am proposing either.

The point you are missing and the reason why developer resources should be used is because this is 1) a way to extinguish more of our overwhelming supply  2) A way for shoppers and merchants to adopt BBP and BBPD for real world adoption and usage  3) A way to increase demand by spreading the knowledge that we will have decreasing supply with increasing adoption and usage of BBPD. That is the real key:  people doing the burn transactions leads to less BBP, the risk asset.  As more people accept and transact with BBPD, the higher the value of the risk asset BBP because it will become in shorter supply UNLIKE Tether, TrueUSD and DAI.  That is what will make BBPD different: it's relationship to a risk asset BBP.

I will be busy for a time tomorrow but will probably be around to chat late.

I very much agree that it isn't worthwhile to chase more miners.  Higher prices attract more miners.  The demand side is our problem.


There doesn't have to be an organization that guarantees the value; the value just has to be set at $1 in the code.  BBPD is worth $1 as long as BBP is tradeable: the fact that BBP is tradeable makes BBPD worth something. If BBP ceases to trade, then BBPD ceases to have value unless BBPD is in a trading pair with the USD. If BBPD is in a USD trading pair, BBPD can trade independently of BBP and have the value of being easily transferrable in less time than is required for a wire or ACH transaction.  BBP should keep and increase in value because BBP should decline in supply as people choose to convert BBP to BBPD, for whatever reason: locking in gains, making purchases, merchants locking in value, etc.

And I don't think it makes it a security because it is not ownership of something other than a currency.  A currency pegged to another currency is about the most pure form of currency I can think of.

I think we should at the very least wait 30 days after C-cex reopens and see if the volume and price make a rebound.  That has always been our best exchange.

Rob, everyone at Biblepay,

I have an idea that I think would be much better than 'opening the floodgates'.  Instead of changing the requirements for mining, I believe we should instead incorporate a concurrent stable coin feature into Biblepay.  The way it would work is to allow people that hold BBP to burn BBP into a stable coin called BBPD.  The value of 1 BBPD=1 USD, and the way you would get BBPD is by burning the value amount of BBP into the equivalent amount of USD.  To keep things simple, say BBP traded for .01 and I had 100 BBP.  Then I could burn 100 BBP into 1 BBPD.  BBPD should also trade as a pair with the USD.  So 1 BBPD:1 USD.  Holders of BBPD would not be allowed to burn their BBPD and remint BBP.  What would be ideal, to get people to want to purchase BBPD over buying BTC and then BBP would be if BBPD would allow the BBPD holder to buy BBP at a discount, say a 20% discount.  Since there will be a difficult time acquiring BBPD, people will still seek to acquire BBP through BTC by paying the full price, because of the diminishing supply over time.  People will want to burn their BBP into BBPD when BBP pumps because they can lock in value without selling to introduce supply.  You would want to only offer the 20% discount to buyers of BBPD and not the BBP burners so that BBP burners cannot just burn their BBP and turn around and buy more BBP for 20% less, so the discount would only happen with a change in ownership from one pool of BBP addresses to another owner's pool of BBP addresses.  

The benefit of BBPD other than offering the buyer of BBPD a 20% discount would be that it would help merchant adoption of cryptocurrency with the ability to lock in BBP price as a stable coin.  So if you actually wanted to buy something with BBP, the merchant would be able to accept your BBP and then immediately burn the BBP into BBPD.  

If (which is doubtful) the entire supply of BBP ever became fully burned, Rob or the development team could reinstantiate the total supply of BBP and convert all holdings of BBPD back to BBP.  If one wanted to remain in BBPD all they would have to do is reburn their transaction back to BBPD.  

So in summary, a stable coin feature should help with the amount of total supply of BBP by giving people incentive to lock in good BBP prices into BBPD.  It should help with demand of BBP because introducing this feature in this way would be a first in crypto.  There is anther Monero fork that is working on a burn and mint stable coin feature but as of today, they are allowing the stable coin holders to remint back into the primary currency, which doesn't enforce a cap on outstanding supply; the total outstanding supply could become well in excess of the total amount mined.  A BBP stable coin feature would help with adoption among merchants.  

Anyway, I hope we consider this idea as a community instead of voting to open the floodgates on mining.

Question for zthomasz or anyone who could answer:

What did you use to write the https://www.biblepay.org/ website out of curiousity?

As I'm not a web professional, I'm always curious about how much website code is hand coded and how much is from a code generator and what code generator is used.  What is the popular tool these days?

This is neat but consider that every individual that buys BBP is helping to support orphans by supporting the price of BBP. If you are buying BBP, you are supporting the price of BBP. If you are supporting the price of BBP to go higher, the price at which we can sell the superblocks that go specifically to orphans is higher, therefore a higher price from buyers willing to pay higher prices of BBP supports more orphans.

The last link in your schematic sends the purchased donations to the orphanages in BBP, which later has to be sold back for fiat.  This has a net zero effect on supporting the price of BBP unless the orphanage accumulates and hoards the donations to wait for a major pump. But if the orphanage sells the BBP on receipt, the effect on the price of BBP is negligible; BBP is bought and sold at a high velocity.  The benefit of masternodes and staking is that the velocity of BBP is slowed and supply is drained, which should encourage buyers.

Miners are one time buyers who buy an amount of coin to stake, true.  But after miners have made their stake, generally miners do not continue to buy.  I feel like the coin would be in worse shape without the staking requirement.  The coin needs buyers who are willing to take a portion of their pay check or income source and invest a percentage into Biblepay on a regular basis or keep finding people who are willing to make an investment.  The people who do this are supporting orphans and research on a regular basis, with the chance of making a profit.

I think distributing a 5 BBP paper wallet to people after church with marketing on the wallet that says "Support orphans and do good with the chance of realizing a profit by buying BBP cryptocurrency."  If you sell it for a loss, it was the same as doing a donation to a charitable cause.  If you sell it for a profit, you supported the orphans and you can support the government by paying capital gains!

I think larger exchanges want to see more volume in order to get listed, which we don't have.

You were the one that said you were creating this for a "better breed of Christians"  that would understand how to mine this.  I don't really want to go back and find the post where you actually said that, but you said you didn't mind it being difficult to attract a "better breed".


Miners didn't push the price from 1 to 80, buyers did.  Market buyers are the only ones who absorb liquidity and push prices higher.  It is a logical fact that market buyers are required to move the price higher.  Miners do not set market buys, only sell limit and sell market orders.  For a fact, right now the price of BBP isn't moving because almost absolutely no one is entering market orders, just limit orders.

Pretty sure LTC is an ASIC coin now anyway.  ASIC miners aren't pushing up the price of LTC.

You didn't model the effusion like Litecoin, you modeled the effusion much closer to DOGECOIN.  
The founder of DOGECOIN still works his day job at Adobe.

https://twitter.com/ummjackson/status/1022684446074368006



Here is the "better breed" post:

Helping miners won't do anything to raise the price of BBP. Miners don't help the price of a cryptocurrency, miners only introduce supply.  All new supply of a cryptocurrency is introduced by miners.  Lowering RAC is only an encouragement to introduce more supply.

The way to help the price of BBP is by encouraging buyers to buy BBP.  But buyers are not encouraged to buy any alts right now as the price of BTC is decreasing.  Since BBP is priced in BTC, no one is encouraged to buy BBP.

A way to encourage potential buyers to buy without regard to the future value of BBP is to encourage people to buy BBP in order to support orphans.  Most of these people could be found in churches.  Let them know the benefit of buying BBP versus giving to a conventional charity because they might actually realize a profit from their "gift of buying BBP" whereas giving to a traditional charity gives them no chance of realizing a profit.

EDIT
So in summary, I believe people are afraid to buy BBP because they are afraid of BTC continuing lower.  I won't be surprised if BTC touches $4000.  $4000 was the average price for 2017 and BTC has a history of reverting to the prior year's mean.  There isn't much we can do about that.  But we can encourage people to buy to support orphans with the chance of realizing a profit.

BBP tagline should be: Support orhphans and do good with the chance of realizing a profit.

Bitcoin is in a bear market. As a trader, you wouldn't want to have too much exposure in a BTC bear.  It's dragging down the Alts.  C-Cex re-opening at the end of August should help some.  

The other thing to do, which I have said, is to go directly to the churches and tell them that by buying BBP they are supporting orphans.  The buyers are the ones who support the orphans.  Whenever I have mentioned going directly to the churches everyone is  just not into that idea. But if you want a consistent bid under BBP, I think that is the way to go.

It's obvious the volume from the latest superblock hasn't come through the exchanges in a big way; cumulative volume has barely been over 1M.

I like the project, but I'm a little disappointed USDAP won't be spendable unless it is made into Air Cash or has to be converted to XAP in order to be sent and transferred.  I would rather USDAP be spendable just like electronic $1 bills.

That's pretty neat.  You are blessing a lot of people through this coin. 

I'm not about to suggest a rewrite in Java to solve the Chinese character problem.

I'm cross posting this here and on reddit because the devs never seem to be around on discord when I am around. So here goes:

I like the news flow from this coin and I am planning on buying more very soon. I like the idea of 2 coins, XHV and XHVD. I have observed another fork to avoid being minable through nicehash. I think there are also other solutions to secure against network attacks. First, I would like to see requiring staking XHV in order to mine and get POW rewards. Since there are 3 million coins out of over 18 million total, this is a good point in the effusion cycle to enable staking to mine. This will make a 51% attack more expensive. The attacker would have to acquire coins, driving the price upwards in order to attack. Higher prices draw more miners and thus more total network hashrate. The stake should be based on the amount of hash power contributed to the network: For example 10 XHV per 1 Mh/s. This also has the effect of locking up supply which over time the price lows will trend higher instead of having huge pumps and then huge downtrends that undercut previous lows. Another possible part of the solution is to require miners to accept a unique ID burnable into the blockchain by burning a very small amount of coin. In order to keep miners from gaming the system, limit the number of blocks that can be solved from a single ID. If a single ID is prohibited from solving consecutive blocks, a single ID cannot have its way with the blockchain and inject a coin base into the block chain to allow a double spend. If the miner uses multiple IDs to try and accomplish injecting a coin base the time required to confirm the movement of coin base should lead to failure or a prohibitively expensive attack. The other possible part of the solution would be to overlay a Distributed Ledger Network over the blockchain network and use trusted nodes that agree on the state of the network every few seconds; using a Distributed Ledger similar to what Stellar does but with privacy.

This is more decentralized than having to fork every so often.