BiblePay | 10% to Orphan-Charity | RANDOMX MINING | Sanctuaries (Masternodes)

[zthomasz]

"Magnitude is computed by assessing the Individual Researchers Share of RAC * 1000"

Source: http://wiki.biblepay.org/Distributed_Computing_Start_Guide

Is the "Individual Researchers Share of RAC" the same as "AVGRac" at BiblePay Pool?

[1715044383]

1715044383

[1715044383]

1715044383

[1715044383]

1715044383

[fahq420]

somehow, i keep not getting payments, I got no payment the 6th or 7th, today when i did getmininginfo it said pool was down, so i switched to the purepool one..any ideas?

been on the 1.1.1.9 wallet.

[Cryptoalt1990]

Cryptoalt+Rob his RAC is http://stats.free-dc.org/stats.php?page=userbycpid&cpid=3f6e58ad467f9374170a68c6d7b1363c  RAC=84,207    and yes=his UTXO is wrong,need stake more BBP

Right, he doesnt stake enough for 90% UTXO weight. Thought the WGC RAC was at fault. It doesn't seem to need to be staked?

Double checking the source code of the core wallet:

We discount WCG Rac at its source point (In our sanctuary FilterFile process) by the UTXO %, so his 35764 WCG RAC was already hit with a 10% hit.  If you go into your SAN directory if you are sanc, you will see his WCG credit is actually 10% higher in the "filter2" file, by grepping for his CPID.

So in a nutshell, the WCGRac column in the superblock view report is already modified down.

Right but shouldn't he need to stake at least 1,330,342 BBP (RAC 70,018 * 19 BBP) to get a 90% UTXO weight? He only stakes 654,847.0000 bbp right now but still gets 90% UTXO weight.

[znjrols5]

I can't seem to figure out why did I get around 10 times less amount from today's PoDC reward, my getboincinfo is showing ~300k UTXOWeight as usual, but I got only 300 coins. My CPID is 307c54df37dd7a158ef9fd7dfe1a1815.
Is only the last PoDC update considered for the following superblock reward? The last one before the superblock -6 blocks for confirmation?

So looking at your 'exec utxoreport cpid', looks like around 9pm last night you sent a small utxo for 79K then a few hours later you sent 301K.

The superblock consensus was based on the small one.

The network as a whole does always use the latest UTXO, the latest always overwrites the earlier timestamped utxos, however, the consensus system does Not use the latest, it uses the most popular/most agreed upon contract....  Another words the SanctuaryQuorum came to consensus after your 79K utxo was sent and before the 301K was sent.

Thank you for looking into this! Although, I've also had even smaller ones, it might be some of the reports under 10k (sound more like 300 coins reward). My controller wallet was down last night, and I guess that utxooverride=-1 doesn't work perfect on other heat mining wallets, so another wallet probably sent several utxoupdates...

So the sanctuaries can get a concensus on any utxoreport between the two superblocks? And if I understand that right, it also means that you can sent single utxoreport, around 10 blocks before superblock, and it should definitely get a sanctuary concensus on for the following superblock, if no other utxoreports were sent since last superblock?

Also, another non-related question, how can I see the list of all the methods you can execute with 'exec method' ?

[slovakia]

ROB and why is his RAC other in your statistics when on DC-STATS is his RAC is 84k?  very strange + his UTXO is bad= he took more bbp

SHT=kozmo21

https://www.biblepay-central.org/en/podc/user/1987705/
http://stats.free-dc.org/stats.php?page=userbycpid&cpid=3f6e58ad467f9374170a68c6d7b1363c


cryptoalt1990 yes, he must stake 1.2M  ... any bug in ROB counting

[zthomasz]

Hi all,

Posting my proposal here for some feedback before opening it up for voting. Please provide feedback here after reading below: http://forum.biblepay.org/index.php?topic=150.0

I'm the Executive Director of one of BBP's recipient charities, BLOOM (Be Love Orphan Outreach Missions.) As some of you may know, one of our main programs is orphan hosting. It's an amazing program where we bring kids from Poland (and hopefully Burundi this summer) to the U.S. for a "reverse mission trip" where American families host the orphans in their homes, and the kids learn English, experience the love of Christ through a Christian family that exemplifies Him, and they get dental and eye exams, etc.

The kids significantly increase their self esteem through this program, thereby decreasing their chances of going into prostitution, becoming criminals, or committing suicide (all very common among orphans who age out of the system in Eastern Europe). 15% of orphans will commit suicide before their 18th birthday, 60% of orphan girls will become prostitutes and 50% of orphan boys will become criminals if no one intervenes in their lives to show them that they can have a future. Hosting mentorship, plus sharing the love of Jesus gives these kids the hope they need for a better future.  Also, orphan hosting significantly increases a child's chances of getting adopted (by about 50-70% depending on the country's adoption rules).

I would like to ask if Bible Pay would sponsor a few "hosting scholarships" for Polish orphans to help offset their airfare to come here on the hosting program. My research shows that kids who have scholarships are 75% more likely to be hosted.

Code:

Five one-time scholarships at between $500-1250 each would help us place 7-9 more kids this summer, including hard-to-place sibling groups! If that is too much to ask, we can certainly reduce this number. To give you perspective, I have 45 Polish kids to place right now, but no scholarships from donors yet, so you'd be really making an impact. I have only placed 5 so far with families, so there will be many heartbroken kids if we cannot boost this number thanks to scholarships.

The benefits of sponsoring a scholarship are that I will directly send updates on how the child is doing in their host family while here in the U.S., including pictures, and you only have to fund it ONCE instead of worrying about ongoing monthly sponsorship funding. And it's exciting to know you literally brought a child out of their orphanage, possibly for the first time in their lives, to get to know the love of Jesus and love of a family, also for the first time ever. Of course, I would give another shout out to BBP as the sponsor on Facebook and in our next newsletter.

The only downside is there would be no letter writing involved, since we don't tell the kids that someone sponsored them (other than their host family). 

Here is a breakdown of the hosting costs per child and how significant BBP's impact would be:
Total hosting cost: $2995
International Airfare: $1000-1200 (BBP contribution 50%)
Domestic US Airfare: $250-500
Food for child in airport/during in-country transport: $20
Medical Insurance: $100
Chaperone travel fees (approx 1 chap for 10-15 kids): $200
Social worker home visit: $150
Child's visa: $160
Child's passport: $100
In-country travel for child to get to airport from orphanage and to embassy (2 trips): $60-80
BLOOM in-country coordinator fee: $100
In-country paperwork chase for child's travel docs/coordinator transport: $50-60
Program shirt/lanyard/ID card: $20
Interview trip/BLOOM US coordination fees: $330
Airline Escorts: $50
Emergency budget: $40-120 (depending on above costs being higher or lower than expected)

In sum, I'd like to ask if BBP would sponsor the following (non-recurring): 
Three $500 scholarships for individual kids=$1500/750,000BBP
Two $1250 scholarships for sibling groups of 2 or 3=$2500/1,250,000BBP
Total: $4000/2,000,000 BBP

If this is too much for the budget right now, I will revise and reduce as needed, but, this would give between 7 and 9 kids a chance at knowing Jesus this summer as is. 

Thank you for the consideration and let me know if you have any questions!

April Wareham
BLOOM Executive Director
www.bloomworldwide.org

April, thanks for the work you're doing with orphans. The statistics you've shown for children in this category are staggering ...

"15% of orphans will commit suicide before their 18th birthday, 60% of orphan girls will become prostitutes and 50% of orphan boys will become criminals if no one intervenes in their lives to show them that they can have a future."

However, you point to the hope they can have ...

"Hosting mentorship, plus sharing the love of Jesus gives these kids the hope they need for a better future. Also, orphan hosting significantly increases a child's chances of getting adopted (by about 50-70% depending on the country's adoption rules)."


I have a couple of questions:

How many days or weeks will the hosted children be with their host Christian families?

Can you post a few pictures of some of the children, or provide a link to more detail about your program?

 

[bible_pay]

Right but why is his UTXO weight still 90% with only 654,847 BBP staked?

It looks like we do have a small bug in our Sanc Quorum calculation.  We are assessing his UTXO level once for RAH, then separately for WCG, giving the Sanc Quorum a reading of 90 for the first and then 90 for the second, (instead of summing them then doing it)...  So basically we are still assessing a UTXO Level for WCG, but independently.  

I'll fix this behavior and then over the next two weeks we can slowly release an upgrade for the sancs.  Im going to try to tie this upgrade in with something else that we need however, so please relax.

In the mean time WCG is still 1:1 credit factor wise with RAH, even though it appears to be 3* harder than RAH, so this is not really a big deal since the people placing weight on WCG are doing more work anyway.

But Ill jump on patching it today.  UTXO weight will be based on the sum of WCG+RAH.  Exec totalrac should already be correct.  That is what we use when we send auto podc updates.

[bible_pay]

ROB and why is his RAC other in your statistics when on DC-STATS is his RAC is 84k?  very strange + his UTXO is bad= he took more bbp

SHT=kozmo21

https://www.biblepay-central.org/en/podc/user/1987705/
http://stats.free-dc.org/stats.php?page=userbycpid&cpid=3f6e58ad467f9374170a68c6d7b1363c


cryptoalt1990 yes, he must stake 1.2M  ... any bug in ROB counting

On the RAC itself compared to Free-DC:  No bug, he was at 75K rac yesterday with 36K from WCG, and today hes higher, no bug there.

On the UTXO requirement see my last post:  Thats a bug and we are fixing that right now!  Basically people with WCG RAC are not getting hit with a combined UTXO requirement.

I do want to stress one other point:  If one were to stop RAH and start WCG they *would* still get hit with the UTXO requirement (we are checking one and then the other but not both summed together), so no need to try that .

[bible_pay]

"Magnitude is computed by assessing the Individual Researchers Share of RAC * 1000"

Source: http://wiki.biblepay.org/Distributed_Computing_Start_Guide

Is the "Individual Researchers Share of RAC" the same as "AVGRac" at BiblePay Pool?

The Individuals Share of RAC formula is:

ModifiedRAC/TotalRAC  *  1000

(Your Modified RAC = UTXO depressed RAC for RAH  +  WCG).

Both of these columns above are exposed in the superblock view report in the pool.

[bible_pay]

A while ago I wanted to buy back some BBP from CCEX but the wallet was not working. Has this been solved and can one withdraw from CCEX?

Successfully tested a withdrawal from C-CEX, wallet is working fine:

Withdrawal
Withdrawal successful!

[bible_pay]

Thank you for looking into this! Although, I've also had even smaller ones, it might be some of the reports under 10k (sound more like 300 coins reward). My controller wallet was down last night, and I guess that utxooverride=-1 doesn't work perfect on other heat mining wallets, so another wallet probably sent several utxoupdates...

So the sanctuaries can get a concensus on any utxoreport between the two superblocks? And if I understand that right, it also means that you can sent single utxoreport, around 10 blocks before superblock, and it should definitely get a sanctuary concensus on for the following superblock, if no other utxoreports were sent since last superblock?

Also, another non-related question, how can I see the list of all the methods you can execute with 'exec method' ?

Please ensure you are on 1.1.1.9 for the utxooverride=-1.  That one is solid.  Before that it was squirrely.

Sancs dont look at the utxo report, they work together on creating a huge contract for the entire team, and then if they all agree on it they vote on it. 
The highest voted contract wins at the end of the 24h cycle.

If you send in a new replacement utxo you still have a chance.  As the above alludes.  Best practice is to prevent bad utxos from being sent.

Regarding the exec commands they are not all for general consumption.  Best advice I have is to look for Togos guide on the ones he exposed.  (A lot of execs were intended for debugging.  I feel we should have a dev convert the important execs to commands over the next year, and remove the word exec, then add those to a FAQ wiki).

[Freebish86]

Can anyone explain how many BBP I need in wallet to get 100% of the RAC rewards when block is solved. I have about 30k in bbp, should this be enough?

[bible_pay]

Howard Pittman's Warning to the Churches:

https://wiki.biblepay.org/WARNING_TO_THE_CHURCHES

[bible_pay]

Can anyone explain how many BBP I need in wallet to get 100% of the RAC rewards when block is solved. I have about 30k in bbp, should this be enough?

Please type 'exec totalrac' and view the "UTXO Target".

[zthomasz]

2nd NOTICE:

Thanks to everyone who donated or loaned BBP to the SouthXchange.com Listing Fee Fund. If you haven't been reimbursed yet, PM me or post the receiving address that you want your BBP sent to.

If your loan was anonymous, please include the transaction info and/or donation date & amount of BBP in order to identify yourself as the lender.

Any loans not claimed by April 30, 2018 will be donated to the BiblePay orphan fund.

Thanks again for helping us complete another successful BiblePay goal!

[jaapgvk]

I've been trying to write some more letters to orphans, but the things that frustrated me a bit in the past could still be improved.

I think the history of an orphan should be more clear. I take an orphan for example:
Aylin Elizabeth Ramos Medina (06991060)

She has been written a letter by us and she send back a letter in reply. Someone has written her a new letter, and although that letter is genuine it's not a response to the letter she has send. This is disappointing to me, because she won't receive a reply to her questions this way.

The reason that this is happening - in my opinion - is because not all information is in clear view. To me, the process is as follows now:
I went to the 'Sponsored Orphan List' to see which orphans still need writing.
Aylin was one of them.

So next I went to the 'Inbound Letters' list, to see her new letter (something that Dale - the one who wrote the latest letter - probably hasn't done. He probably saw that a letter needed to be written and send a letter based on her bio and not her letter).

After that, I started reading her letter and started formulating answers to her questions. But instead of that, I should have gone to the 'Outgoing letters' tab, because only after I wrote my letter, I found out that there was there was already a letter that was written by Dave (although I don't think it a good letter, because he doesn't reply to the questions that Aylin asked), but it wasn't approved yet.

So. I suggest a couple of 'improvements':
-Maybe in the 'Sponsored Orphan List', there should also be a column that shows if an unapproved letter is already written,
-Maybe there should also be a column that links to the latest inbound letter?

I'm not sure how to improve the flow of information here, but to me the whole proces is a bit frustrating at the moment, because I feel that I have to take too many steps.

Or maybe we need a page that shows the following things (just an idea):
Name - Biography - Latest Letter - Needs written (TRUE/FALSE) - Unapproved letter in pool (TRUE/FALSE)

Just trying to find a way that works with less steps than is required now

[tmike]

I've been trying to write some more letters to orphans, but the things that frustrated me a bit in the past could still be improved.

I think the history of an orphan should be more clear. I take an orphan for example:
Aylin Elizabeth Ramos Medina (06991060)

She has been written a letter by us and she send back a letter in reply. Someone has written her a new letter, and although that letter is genuine it's not a response to the letter she has send. This is disappointing to me, because she won't receive a reply to her questions this way.

The reason that this is happening - in my opinion - is because not all information is in clear view. To me, the process is as follows now:
I went to the 'Sponsored Orphan List' to see which orphans still need writing.
Aylin was one of them.

So next I went to the 'Inbound Letters' list, to see her new letter (something that Dale - the one who wrote the latest letter - probably hasn't done. He probably saw that a letter needed to be written and send a letter based on her bio and not her letter).

After that, I started reading her letter and started formulating answers to her questions. But instead of that, I should have gone to the 'Outgoing letters' tab, because only after I wrote my letter, I found out that there was there was already a letter that was written by Dave (although I don't think it a good letter, because he doesn't reply to the questions that Aylin asked), but it wasn't approved yet.

So. I suggest a couple of 'improvements':
-Maybe in the 'Sponsored Orphan List', there should also be a column that shows if an unapproved letter is already written,
-Maybe there should also be a column that links to the latest inbound letter?

I'm not sure how to improve the flow of information here, but to me the whole proces is a bit frustrating at the moment, because I feel that I have to take too many steps.

Or maybe we need a page that shows the following things (just an idea):
Name - Biography - Latest Letter - Needs written (TRUE/FALSE) - Unapproved letter in pool (TRUE/FALSE)

Just trying to find a way that works with less steps than is required now

How about if we do adopt a child and you just stick with a few kids. I think it is more beneficial if 1 kid is only writing letters to 1 or 2 people. I can immediately do a quick list on the website and we can improve it later.

[ang2]

Can someone please explain me why I got 547.1960 bbp from this?
https://www.biblepay-central.org/en/podc/user/1993146/

Also, can someone explain why in previous block the utxo amount was 50,917.0000 and in the next payment it writes that the utxo amount is 7,144.0000 ?

I use v. 1.1.1.9 . Should I set utxoamount or not? Is there any other settings I should set? What does utxoverride do?

Sorry for all of these questions but I am totally confused...

[616westwarmoth]

I've been trying to write some more letters to orphans, but the things that frustrated me a bit in the past could still be improved.

I think the history of an orphan should be more clear. I take an orphan for example:
Aylin Elizabeth Ramos Medina (06991060)

She has been written a letter by us and she send back a letter in reply. Someone has written her a new letter, and although that letter is genuine it's not a response to the letter she has send. This is disappointing to me, because she won't receive a reply to her questions this way.

The reason that this is happening - in my opinion - is because not all information is in clear view. To me, the process is as follows now:
I went to the 'Sponsored Orphan List' to see which orphans still need writing.
Aylin was one of them.

So next I went to the 'Inbound Letters' list, to see her new letter (something that Dale - the one who wrote the latest letter - probably hasn't done. He probably saw that a letter needed to be written and send a letter based on her bio and not her letter).

After that, I started reading her letter and started formulating answers to her questions. But instead of that, I should have gone to the 'Outgoing letters' tab, because only after I wrote my letter, I found out that there was there was already a letter that was written by Dave (although I don't think it a good letter, because he doesn't reply to the questions that Aylin asked), but it wasn't approved yet.

So. I suggest a couple of 'improvements':
-Maybe in the 'Sponsored Orphan List', there should also be a column that shows if an unapproved letter is already written,
-Maybe there should also be a column that links to the latest inbound letter?

I'm not sure how to improve the flow of information here, but to me the whole proces is a bit frustrating at the moment, because I feel that I have to take too many steps.

Or maybe we need a page that shows the following things (just an idea):
Name - Biography - Latest Letter - Needs written (TRUE/FALSE) - Unapproved letter in pool (TRUE/FALSE)

Just trying to find a way that works with less steps than is required now

I would like to second what had been suggested.

Allow for a letter writer to "Claim" an orphan.  Then the primary writer will be that person, and their letters will get higher priority to be approved (since in theory, they've already shown themselves to be good stewards and good letter writers).  Each user can claim only one orphan (although the can still write to others, and others can submit letters to their claimed orphan).  They should get a notification when their orphan has written back and then have a time period (4 weeks?) where they have to write back or they lose their claim.

That then gets to my other thought, we should have a committee of three to review the orphan letters.  This would take some burden off of Rob.  Or Rob could be one of the three if he receives joy and satisfaction from that. 

[tmike]

I've been trying to write some more letters to orphans, but the things that frustrated me a bit in the past could still be improved.

I think the history of an orphan should be more clear. I take an orphan for example:
Aylin Elizabeth Ramos Medina (06991060)

She has been written a letter by us and she send back a letter in reply. Someone has written her a new letter, and although that letter is genuine it's not a response to the letter she has send. This is disappointing to me, because she won't receive a reply to her questions this way.

The reason that this is happening - in my opinion - is because not all information is in clear view. To me, the process is as follows now:
I went to the 'Sponsored Orphan List' to see which orphans still need writing.
Aylin was one of them.

So next I went to the 'Inbound Letters' list, to see her new letter (something that Dale - the one who wrote the latest letter - probably hasn't done. He probably saw that a letter needed to be written and send a letter based on her bio and not her letter).

After that, I started reading her letter and started formulating answers to her questions. But instead of that, I should have gone to the 'Outgoing letters' tab, because only after I wrote my letter, I found out that there was there was already a letter that was written by Dave (although I don't think it a good letter, because he doesn't reply to the questions that Aylin asked), but it wasn't approved yet.

So. I suggest a couple of 'improvements':
-Maybe in the 'Sponsored Orphan List', there should also be a column that shows if an unapproved letter is already written,
-Maybe there should also be a column that links to the latest inbound letter?

I'm not sure how to improve the flow of information here, but to me the whole proces is a bit frustrating at the moment, because I feel that I have to take too many steps.

Or maybe we need a page that shows the following things (just an idea):
Name - Biography - Latest Letter - Needs written (TRUE/FALSE) - Unapproved letter in pool (TRUE/FALSE)

Just trying to find a way that works with less steps than is required now

I would like to second what had been suggested.

Allow for a letter writer to "Claim" an orphan.  Then the primary writer will be that person, and their letters will get higher priority to be approved (since in theory, they've already shown themselves to be good stewards and good letter writers).  Each user can claim only one orphan (although the can still write to others, and others can submit letters to their claimed orphan).  They should get a notification when their orphan has written back and then have a time period (4 weeks?) where they have to write back or they lose their claim.

That then gets to my other thought, we should have a committee of three to review the orphan letters.  This would take some burden off of Rob.  Or Rob could be one of the three if he receives joy and satisfaction from that. 

I think that would be a great job for the charity commission. So far zero votes though.