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

[Brian879]

I actually talked about BBP to some friends that were interested in mining it. I did a calculation according to my data for them - the fact that they would need to buy BBP for 1000 USD in order to be able to mine with the daily profit of ~8 USD minus electricity & HW costs discouraged all of them. Part of them couldn't even afford that, another part said that it would be too risky for them (given the market cap) :-(

I was thinking about a way how we could make mining less easy for big whales, where (I'm guessing) a single person controls large amount of some spare datacenter servers. I like the idea of writing letters to orphans and having this manual work needed in order to get mining rewards, but it brings challenges for non-native English speakers. But if there were also some other ways of supporting orphans, so that people could actually choose from multiple of them an get some points for that that would count in the reward formula, it could help the "average" miners.

Also, it seems that the big whales still use temporary servers (e.g. a server that is mining for few hours and then vanishes). As we saw when we run out of Rosetta tasks, it brings challenges to BOINC infrastructure, so perhaps we could penalize miners with many cancelled/unfinished tasks or with servers with "small age"?

I'm not really sure what the actual issue is with "whales". In the end, they just bring more to the table and they are rewarded for it. They bring both computing power and also have a ("risky") investment as they're holding a large amount of BBP instead of just selling it. There's nothing that can be done against it. Anyone could take the same amount of risk and be rewarded the same? If you can't afford it, well then sorry but why would anyone make such a risky investment if there wasn't an appropriate reward for it?

If I wanted to mine bitcoin right now I would have to spend thousands on an ASIC, if I wanted to mine any other GPU coins...well I would have to drop a few grands to buy my graphic cards. One could argue that it is a less risky investment because you could reuse the GPU for a lot of coins or even sell them and that is true...but it will be way less profitable that investing into something more "risky" like BBP.

You're rewarded proportionally to the risk you're taking. If I took a bank loan or invested my savings to become a BBP "whale", I would expect to be rewarded accordingly for the risk I'm taking. You can't just expect a big reward if you're not willing to take any risk.

If the staking was removed, the existing and new "whales" will just increase the amount of processing power and it will be the same distribution % or even "worse", minus the fact that they don't have to hold BBP so that's less risky for them.

[1713439191]

1713439191

[1713439191]

1713439191

[1713439191]

1713439191

[1713439191]

1713439191

[1713439191]

1713439191

[aikida3k]

I actually talked about BBP to some friends that were interested in mining it. I did a calculation according to my data for them - the fact that they would need to buy BBP for 1000 USD in order to be able to mine with the daily profit of ~8 USD minus electricity & HW costs discouraged all of them. Part of them couldn't even afford that, another part said that it would be too risky for them (given the market cap) :-(

I was thinking about a way how we could make mining less easy for big whales, where (I'm guessing) a single person controls large amount of some spare datacenter servers. I like the idea of writing letters to orphans and having this manual work needed in order to get mining rewards, but it brings challenges for non-native English speakers. But if there were also some other ways of supporting orphans, so that people could actually choose from multiple of them an get some points for that that would count in the reward formula, it could help the "average" miners.

Also, it seems that the big whales still use temporary servers (e.g. a server that is mining for few hours and then vanishes). As we saw when we run out of Rosetta tasks, it brings challenges to BOINC infrastructure, so perhaps we could penalize miners with many cancelled/unfinished tasks or with servers with "small age"?

I'll tell you exactly what I did to get 200k RAC.  I went out and bought 26 refurbished servers from ebay for about $200 a piece all in when you count making the cable, the switches and the time involved (you can buy them off ebay for about 160-180 delivered depending on RAM). Here is the link to the actual server I bought https://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Proliant-DL380-G6-Server-Dual-Xeon-X5650-Hex-Core-2-66GHz-16GB-2x-146GB-RPS/191708994893?_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D51376%26meid%3D5eab104b656844b2a20211b7304e811e%26pid%3D100675%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D15%26sd%3D132527129798%26itm%3D191708994893&_trksid=p2481888.c100675.m4236&_trkparms=pageci%3Ad1adda33-4d64-11e8-8af1-74dbd180dc97%7Cparentrq%3A1cbe01bd1630a9c510e52233ffff0b04%7Ciid%3A1

They include Windows Server Evaluation in the install, which I left on for the sake of time.  You can install Ubuntu with a few more minutes.  They will take $175.05 to agree to a purchase.  Right now at 100% staking requirement I get just under 30,000 bbp which is approximately 30,000*.00000040*9,000 which is about $108 per day.  At that run rate, I pay off my servers in 48 days, which is phenomenal.  My staking requirement is $12,960 or about $500 per server, which I think is totally fair considering what I'm getting.

[aikida3k]

58 Million Biblepay coins tied up in mining, just by the top 3 Biblepay whales!

BBP
Onii-Chan
Mike

I never expected Onii to drop to #2 to be overtaken by a bigger whale...

Its even more fascinating that User #1 is at 90% UTXO because his RAC is rising faster than his 26.4 Million stake requirement.

Wow! That's crazy to see. If I look at the superblock view, there's something like 160M in PODC staking total. and then there are around 189 masternodes configured, so let's call that another 292M in masternode staking.

That makes 160+292 = 452M total reserved for staking, out of a total supply of 600M. >75% of our total supply is reserved.

Does that seem high to anyone? I don't know that it is a PROBLEM or anything, but it seems like a big percentage to me.

I do agree that something needs to change here, I'm trying to get my Biblepay mining working correctly and just with my main desktop and a small older HP workstation server, my RAC is so high (11K), I would need over 300K coins to get the full rewards, which right now, costs about $1000usd. I understand trying to eliminate the botnet, etc., but this seems a little over the top. You basically have to have a mini-masternode just to be able to mine the coin.

I agree also partially.

Btw nice term mini-masternode

I also agree that it's probably too high for some with the current BBP prices. As far as I'm concerned staking is for battling botnets, but it should not be so high that it discourages some/most new users to mine. Staking BBP/MAG could maybe be better in this regard.

But I guess that nothing is stopping us from changing the staking requirements with every mandatory update, right?

user adoption is essential for a coin to survive, and many people are here to mine.

Or course, there is always unbanked mining if you don't want to or can't stake. And there are ways to earn BBP in other ways, like writing letters to orphans, and creating proposals if you think you can contribute to BiblePay.

I mean, if BBP goes 10x, we will definitely need to change the staking requirements, or else no-one is going to start mining with such high entry costs, and that will shift power to the people already mining now.

Also, for a good 'spread of the wealth', it's probably best to have high early user adoption.

Jaapgvk, I'm not meaning to come off as harsh, you're a super nice and super generous guy.
Right now it's a pretty good joke 'if Biblepay goes 10x'.  Have you seen the 2.6 million (now 2.4 million) BBP on the ask at c-cex that has been sitting at 37 sat for at least 48 hours now?  This coin needs staking to survive meeting its obligations to the orphans.  There needs to be some way to increase demand before you talk about lowering staking requirements.  How about getting over 1 BTC total on the bid?  Other exchanges are looking at that in regards as to whether they will add BBP.  To put it bluntly, this coin needs to be shilled, but no one want to do the shilling.

I don't see why not, as it's doing great things in the world and there is all kind of evidence for that.

Where would demand come from if there are no new users coming because the cost of entry is just too high? I want people all over the world to be able to mine this coin with just the PC that they have at home. I'm not talking solely about western countries, but also the less fortunate countries in terms of people's income.I think that's a large part of our potential userbase, including people that are just starting out in crypto and want to use their home-PC to earn some. When that person needs to invest $1000+ just to start mining, that person is probably NEVER going to do that, because most people in this world don't really have those kind of savings.

I liked Rob's idea of giving people a 'starting capital' though. If new users have a CPID + a certain amount of RAC (+I thought that Rob had some other requirements in order to be given the capital), they can go to a faucet that gives them an x-amount (1000s?) of BBP, so they can start earning rewards right away.

I would like to see that implemented.

Oh, and regarding shilling: I'm building a bounty page for our new website right now, and I have  a topic in the proposal section of our forum to have an airdrop https://forum.biblepay.org/index.php?topic=120.0
I also talk about a signature campaign in there. And I like your paper wallet suggestion. These are all ways to give BiblePay more exposure.

I'm very aware that this coin needs more exposure, but I don't think that it needs a fixed 20BBP/RAC staking requirement in order to grow. It could very well become a reason why the coin can fail. As far as I'm concerned, it's a way to fight botnets, but it shouldn't prevent people from joining us because they just can't afford it.

Demand has to come from buyers.  Miners don't support orphans.  Miners only stake or introduce supply.  Buyers support the price.  Supporting the price is what allows us to support orphans.  A 75% lockup is a very good reason to buy the coin.  But people have to know that we are staking to mine, which locks ups supply, which is another reason this coin needs to be shilled.  If you take away the staking requirement, I will sell my stake and leave.  Because then there isn't much that prevents this coin from round tripping to 15 satoshi.  Only about .75 bitcoin, in fact.

ALL POW coins are facing this problem: Why do buyers put up with miners constantly introducing supply?  And what prevents miners from scaling up to the point of vanishing profit?  The answer to both of these conundrums is stake to mine: miners have to hold with buyers and lock supply up.  Miners have to buy coin, which stabilizes or raises prices in order to scale up, preserving the profitability of mining.  You need to stake in order to preserve mining profitability. That's why if we take away staking, I am leaving while the getting is good.

I never said we should take away staking, I simply said that the 20BBP/RAC is perhaps too high to attract new users. Let's face it: the vast majority of our current users are probably miners. And miners are also buyers. See rastiks real-life example. THAT is where I think our primary investors currently are, and they decided not to invest because the costs to start mining was just too high.

These users start by mining, then they get involved in the project, then they add other value (I, for example, started as a miner). If we have a nice growth of miners (users), there is much less need to shill.

Even with the staking requirement, I am making a killing mining this coin.  I went out and bought the highest performance CPU refurbished servers I could find for the lowest price.  I think it's possible Rastiks friends just didn't see the complete larger picture.

I'll tell you exactly what I did to get 200k RAC.  I went out and bought 26 refurbished servers from ebay for about $200 a piece all in when you count making the cable, the switches and the time involved (you can buy them off ebay for about 160-180 delivered depending on RAM). Here is the link to the actual server I bought https://www.ebay.com/itm/HP-Proliant-DL380-G6-Server-Dual-Xeon-X5650-Hex-Core-2-66GHz-16GB-2x-146GB-RPS/191708994893?_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D51376%26meid%3D5eab104b656844b2a20211b7304e811e%26pid%3D100675%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D15%26sd%3D132527129798%26itm%3D191708994893&_trksid=p2481888.c100675.m4236&_trkparms=pageci%3Ad1adda33-4d64-11e8-8af1-74dbd180dc97%7Cparentrq%3A1cbe01bd1630a9c510e52233ffff0b04%7Ciid%3A1

They include Windows Server Evaluation in the install, which I left on for the sake of time.  You can install Ubuntu with a few more minutes.  They will take $175.05 to agree to a purchase.  Right now at 100% staking requirement I get just under 30,000 bbp which is approximately 30,000*.00000040*9,000 which is about $108 per day.  At that run rate, I pay off my servers in 48 days, which is phenomenal.  My staking requirement is $12,960 or about $500 per server, which I think is totally fair considering what I'm getting.

[aikida3k]

58 Million Biblepay coins tied up in mining, just by the top 3 Biblepay whales!

BBP
Onii-Chan
Mike

I never expected Onii to drop to #2 to be overtaken by a bigger whale...

Its even more fascinating that User #1 is at 90% UTXO because his RAC is rising faster than his 26.4 Million stake requirement.

Wow! That's crazy to see. If I look at the superblock view, there's something like 160M in PODC staking total. and then there are around 189 masternodes configured, so let's call that another 292M in masternode staking.

That makes 160+292 = 452M total reserved for staking, out of a total supply of 600M. >75% of our total supply is reserved.

Does that seem high to anyone? I don't know that it is a PROBLEM or anything, but it seems like a big percentage to me.

I do agree that something needs to change here, I'm trying to get my Biblepay mining working correctly and just with my main desktop and a small older HP workstation server, my RAC is so high (11K), I would need over 300K coins to get the full rewards, which right now, costs about $1000usd. I understand trying to eliminate the botnet, etc., but this seems a little over the top. You basically have to have a mini-masternode just to be able to mine the coin.

I agree also partially.

Btw nice term mini-masternode

I also agree that it's probably too high for some with the current BBP prices. As far as I'm concerned staking is for battling botnets, but it should not be so high that it discourages some/most new users to mine. Staking BBP/MAG could maybe be better in this regard.

But I guess that nothing is stopping us from changing the staking requirements with every mandatory update, right?

user adoption is essential for a coin to survive, and many people are here to mine.

Or course, there is always unbanked mining if you don't want to or can't stake. And there are ways to earn BBP in other ways, like writing letters to orphans, and creating proposals if you think you can contribute to BiblePay.

I mean, if BBP goes 10x, we will definitely need to change the staking requirements, or else no-one is going to start mining with such high entry costs, and that will shift power to the people already mining now.

Also, for a good 'spread of the wealth', it's probably best to have high early user adoption.

Jaapgvk, I'm not meaning to come off as harsh, you're a super nice and super generous guy.
Right now it's a pretty good joke 'if Biblepay goes 10x'.  Have you seen the 2.6 million (now 2.4 million) BBP on the ask at c-cex that has been sitting at 37 sat for at least 48 hours now?  This coin needs staking to survive meeting its obligations to the orphans.  There needs to be some way to increase demand before you talk about lowering staking requirements.  How about getting over 1 BTC total on the bid?  Other exchanges are looking at that in regards as to whether they will add BBP.  To put it bluntly, this coin needs to be shilled, but no one want to do the shilling.

I don't see why not, as it's doing great things in the world and there is all kind of evidence for that.

Where would demand come from if there are no new users coming because the cost of entry is just too high? I want people all over the world to be able to mine this coin with just the PC that they have at home. I'm not talking solely about western countries, but also the less fortunate countries in terms of people's income.I think that's a large part of our potential userbase, including people that are just starting out in crypto and want to use their home-PC to earn some. When that person needs to invest $1000+ just to start mining, that person is probably NEVER going to do that, because most people in this world don't really have those kind of savings.

I liked Rob's idea of giving people a 'starting capital' though. If new users have a CPID + a certain amount of RAC (+I thought that Rob had some other requirements in order to be given the capital), they can go to a faucet that gives them an x-amount (1000s?) of BBP, so they can start earning rewards right away.

I would like to see that implemented.

Oh, and regarding shilling: I'm building a bounty page for our new website right now, and I have  a topic in the proposal section of our forum to have an airdrop https://forum.biblepay.org/index.php?topic=120.0
I also talk about a signature campaign in there. And I like your paper wallet suggestion. These are all ways to give BiblePay more exposure.

I'm very aware that this coin needs more exposure, but I don't think that it needs a fixed 20BBP/RAC staking requirement in order to grow. It could very well become a reason why the coin can fail. As far as I'm concerned, it's a way to fight botnets, but it shouldn't prevent people from joining us because they just can't afford it.

Demand has to come from buyers.  Miners don't support orphans.  Miners only stake or introduce supply.  Buyers support the price.  Supporting the price is what allows us to support orphans.  A 75% lockup is a very good reason to buy the coin.  But people have to know that we are staking to mine, which locks ups supply, which is another reason this coin needs to be shilled.  If you take away the staking requirement, I will sell my stake and leave.  Because then there isn't much that prevents this coin from round tripping to 15 satoshi.  Only about .75 bitcoin, in fact.

ALL POW coins are facing this problem: Why do buyers put up with miners constantly introducing supply?  And what prevents miners from scaling up to the point of vanishing profit?  The answer to both of these conundrums is stake to mine: miners have to hold with buyers and lock supply up.  Miners have to buy coin, which stabilizes or raises prices in order to scale up, preserving the profitability of mining.  You need to stake in order to preserve mining profitability. That's why if we take away staking, I am leaving while the getting is good.

I never said we should take away staking, I simply said that the 20BBP/RAC is perhaps too high to attract new users. Let's face it: the vast majority of our current users are probably miners. And miners are also buyers. See rastiks real-life example. THAT is where I think our primary investors currently are, and they decided not to invest because the costs to start mining was just too high.

These users start by mining, then they get involved in the project, then they add other value (I, for example, started as a miner). If we have a nice growth of miners (users), there is much less need to shill.

If you only concentrate on increasing the mining base you run the risk of total collapse:  increasing the miner base without a correlated increase in price will erode mining profitability.  Once mining profitability is gone, then miners leave, dump their coins and the price collapses and the coin dies at least until effusion lowers by a substantial amount.  Miners only buy now because they have to stake.  I think $500/ server to get $4.15 daily is totally reasonable.  That's $1,516 per year.

[jaapgvk]

58 Million Biblepay coins tied up in mining, just by the top 3 Biblepay whales!

BBP
Onii-Chan
Mike

I never expected Onii to drop to #2 to be overtaken by a bigger whale...

Its even more fascinating that User #1 is at 90% UTXO because his RAC is rising faster than his 26.4 Million stake requirement.

Wow! That's crazy to see. If I look at the superblock view, there's something like 160M in PODC staking total. and then there are around 189 masternodes configured, so let's call that another 292M in masternode staking.

That makes 160+292 = 452M total reserved for staking, out of a total supply of 600M. >75% of our total supply is reserved.

Does that seem high to anyone? I don't know that it is a PROBLEM or anything, but it seems like a big percentage to me.

I do agree that something needs to change here, I'm trying to get my Biblepay mining working correctly and just with my main desktop and a small older HP workstation server, my RAC is so high (11K), I would need over 300K coins to get the full rewards, which right now, costs about $1000usd. I understand trying to eliminate the botnet, etc., but this seems a little over the top. You basically have to have a mini-masternode just to be able to mine the coin.

I agree also partially.

Btw nice term mini-masternode

I also agree that it's probably too high for some with the current BBP prices. As far as I'm concerned staking is for battling botnets, but it should not be so high that it discourages some/most new users to mine. Staking BBP/MAG could maybe be better in this regard.

But I guess that nothing is stopping us from changing the staking requirements with every mandatory update, right?

user adoption is essential for a coin to survive, and many people are here to mine.

Or course, there is always unbanked mining if you don't want to or can't stake. And there are ways to earn BBP in other ways, like writing letters to orphans, and creating proposals if you think you can contribute to BiblePay.

I mean, if BBP goes 10x, we will definitely need to change the staking requirements, or else no-one is going to start mining with such high entry costs, and that will shift power to the people already mining now.

Also, for a good 'spread of the wealth', it's probably best to have high early user adoption.

Jaapgvk, I'm not meaning to come off as harsh, you're a super nice and super generous guy.
Right now it's a pretty good joke 'if Biblepay goes 10x'.  Have you seen the 2.6 million (now 2.4 million) BBP on the ask at c-cex that has been sitting at 37 sat for at least 48 hours now?  This coin needs staking to survive meeting its obligations to the orphans.  There needs to be some way to increase demand before you talk about lowering staking requirements.  How about getting over 1 BTC total on the bid?  Other exchanges are looking at that in regards as to whether they will add BBP.  To put it bluntly, this coin needs to be shilled, but no one want to do the shilling.

I don't see why not, as it's doing great things in the world and there is all kind of evidence for that.

Where would demand come from if there are no new users coming because the cost of entry is just too high? I want people all over the world to be able to mine this coin with just the PC that they have at home. I'm not talking solely about western countries, but also the less fortunate countries in terms of people's income.I think that's a large part of our potential userbase, including people that are just starting out in crypto and want to use their home-PC to earn some. When that person needs to invest $1000+ just to start mining, that person is probably NEVER going to do that, because most people in this world don't really have those kind of savings.

I liked Rob's idea of giving people a 'starting capital' though. If new users have a CPID + a certain amount of RAC (+I thought that Rob had some other requirements in order to be given the capital), they can go to a faucet that gives them an x-amount (1000s?) of BBP, so they can start earning rewards right away.

I would like to see that implemented.

Oh, and regarding shilling: I'm building a bounty page for our new website right now, and I have  a topic in the proposal section of our forum to have an airdrop https://forum.biblepay.org/index.php?topic=120.0
I also talk about a signature campaign in there. And I like your paper wallet suggestion. These are all ways to give BiblePay more exposure.

I'm very aware that this coin needs more exposure, but I don't think that it needs a fixed 20BBP/RAC staking requirement in order to grow. It could very well become a reason why the coin can fail. As far as I'm concerned, it's a way to fight botnets, but it shouldn't prevent people from joining us because they just can't afford it.

Demand has to come from buyers.  Miners don't support orphans.  Miners only stake or introduce supply.  Buyers support the price.  Supporting the price is what allows us to support orphans.  A 75% lockup is a very good reason to buy the coin.  But people have to know that we are staking to mine, which locks ups supply, which is another reason this coin needs to be shilled.  If you take away the staking requirement, I will sell my stake and leave.  Because then there isn't much that prevents this coin from round tripping to 15 satoshi.  Only about .75 bitcoin, in fact.

ALL POW coins are facing this problem: Why do buyers put up with miners constantly introducing supply?  And what prevents miners from scaling up to the point of vanishing profit?  The answer to both of these conundrums is stake to mine: miners have to hold with buyers and lock supply up.  Miners have to buy coin, which stabilizes or raises prices in order to scale up, preserving the profitability of mining.  You need to stake in order to preserve mining profitability. That's why if we take away staking, I am leaving while the getting is good.

I never said we should take away staking, I simply said that the 20BBP/RAC is perhaps too high to attract new users. Let's face it: the vast majority of our current users are probably miners. And miners are also buyers. See rastiks real-life example. THAT is where I think our primary investors currently are, and they decided not to invest because the costs to start mining was just too high.

These users start by mining, then they get involved in the project, then they add other value (I, for example, started as a miner). If we have a nice growth of miners (users), there is much less need to shill.

If you only concentrate on increasing the mining base you run the risk of total collapse:  increasing the miner base without a correlated increase in price will erode mining profitability.  Once mining profitability is gone, then miners leave, dump their coins and the price collapses and the coin dies at least until effusion lowers by a substantial amount.  Miners only buy now because they have to stake.  I think $500/ server to get $4.15 daily is totally reasonable.  That's $1,516 per year.

I absolutely agree with you, but I don't like it that you keep implying that I say things that I obviously don't. I never said that we should only concentrate on increasing the mining base.

I am actually with you on the shilling, and I said that you had some good ideas. I actually made a proposal to actively go out and shill.

I was just saying that CURRENTLY probably most of our (potential) users are miners, and that these miners are also people that can potentially do very good things to the project (not as miners, but as contributors to the project in intellectual ways).

We need both obviously. I am only thinking about how we can achieve the MOST user adaptation, and how we can have the most fair distribution of coins. And I think that large part in having a good coin-distribution lies in having a LOT of miners from the start, competing for BBP.  

I actually bought a HP Proliant DL380 G5 for 50 Euro's. Got about 8K RAC out of it, which was quite nice. I have now stopped all mining btw.

[aikida3k]

I absolutely agree with you, but I don't like it that you keep implying that I say things that I obviously don't. I never said that we should only concentrate on increasing the mining base.

I am actually with you on the shilling, and I said that you had some good ideas. I actually made a proposal to actively go out and shill.

I was just saying that CURRENTLY probably most of our (potential) users are miners, and that these miners are also people that can potentially do very good things to the project (not as miners, but as contributors to the project in intellectual ways).

We need both obviously. I am only thinking about how we can achieve the MOST user adaptation, and how we can have the most fair distribution of coins. And I think that large part in having a good coin-distribution lies in having a LOT of miners from the start, competing for BBP.  

I actually bought a HP Proliant DL380 G5 for 50 Euro's. Got about 8K RAC out of it, which was quite nice. I have now stopped all mining btw.

I am looking at the demand from the current mining base and investors and what I see is not good: there is currently less than 1 BTC on the buy side, on the demand.  That is bad.  Is increasing the mining base your solution for increasing the demand?  I don't think that is viable.  More miners will come with higher prices, it's pretty much a given.  But the current problem is how to get higher prices CONSISTENTLY?  Because we don't pump and stay there, I believe it is in the coin's best interest to leave the current staking requirement where it is and instead concentrate on getting people to see reasons why they would want to own Biblepay.  I believe working through churches is a part of that.

Nice find on your G5!

You're a nicer and more generous guy than I am.

[jaapgvk]

I absolutely agree with you, but I don't like it that you keep implying that I say things that I obviously don't. I never said that we should only concentrate on increasing the mining base.

I am actually with you on the shilling, and I said that you had some good ideas. I actually made a proposal to actively go out and shill.

I was just saying that CURRENTLY probably most of our (potential) users are miners, and that these miners are also people that can potentially do very good things to the project (not as miners, but as contributors to the project in intellectual ways).

We need both obviously. I am only thinking about how we can achieve the MOST user adaptation, and how we can have the most fair distribution of coins. And I think that large part in having a good coin-distribution lies in having a LOT of miners from the start, competing for BBP.  

I actually bought a HP Proliant DL380 G5 for 50 Euro's. Got about 8K RAC out of it, which was quite nice. I have now stopped all mining btw.

I am looking at the demand from the current mining base and investors and what I see is not good: there is currently less than 1 BTC on the buy side, on the demand.  That is bad.  Is increasing the mining base your solution for increasing the demand?  I don't think that is viable.  More miners will come with higher prices, it's pretty much a given.  But the current problem is how to get higher prices CONSISTENTLY?  Because we don't pump and stay there, I believe it is in the coin's best interest to leave the current staking requirement where it is and instead concentrate on getting people to see reasons why they would want to own Biblepay.  I believe working through churches is a part of that.

Nice find on your G5!

You're a nicer and more generous guy than I am.

Thanks

Increasing both mining base AND non-miner investors is obviously the path with the most change of succeeding. Lowering the staking-requirements will probably move the market in a negative way short-term, since a lot of BBP will become unlocked. But still I think that if we started with a lower BBP/RAC requirement, we would now have more miners on board.

I agree with your idea about working through churches for example. We REALLY need that. I'm for all kinds of exposure! That's why I really pushed on getting a 'bigger' website, with a blog and lots of information/manuals. That's also why I helped Habib organizing his tour in Ghana, and why I am currently working on a potentially great way to get more investors on board (but I can't really release any information on that right now).

[ganjaman]

Check out https://masternodexchange.com we offer low listing cost for new coins with an added bonus to our other sites!


Any coin listed at MasternodeXchange will get free listing on http://cryptovaluecap.com


What is CryptoValueCap?

CryptoValueCap is Crypto Market Capilization site, which displays general information, real-time quotes, trades, interactive historical charts and twitter timeline feed for more than 2000 cryptocurrencies.

Want to learn more join our discord!

https://discord.gg/UX9cSwh

[noxpost]

Another curious point is the economics of mining vs a sanctuary - if we want to play the numbers game. I'll assume 1 BBP = ~.0034 USD.

I currently have  2 sancs that cost me $5/month each ($10/month total) and net me ~4800 BBP/day each (so let's say 9600 BBP /day, or 9600*365/12 = 292000 BBP/month).
Even at today's rates, that's about $1000/month.

So I'm spending $10/month to get $1000/month back - assuming I can stake/reserve 3000000 BBP, meaning I'm reserving about $10k of coins.

That's a pretty ludicrous payback, and the only drawback is that I had to have $10k to get started.

Now doing it the mining way is very profitable as well - you are saying that a 200K RAC gets you $108/day, or $3285/month (108*365/12), for an upfront equipment cost of $5200 and a staking balance of about $13000.

I'll also assume that energy costs (which I don't have with a rented, hosted server) costs you about $30/month/server, or about $780/month. (It could be slightly different).

Now let's do some analysis:

Mining is OBVIOUSLY more profitable. A buy-in (between equipment and staking) of $18000 gets you $30000 profit in the first 12 months. Where as sanctuaries require far less ($10000 upfront for 2, all staking), and gain a profit of $11800 in the first 12 months.

Now, I would say that these are two very different user bases - HOWEVER...if a user was interested in becoming a power miner, one way to get into it would be to start with the lower costs of running a few sancs for a couple of months.

If you did that for say, 6 months, you'd have more than enough BBP to cover the mining staking (converting your sanc stake + sanc daily rewards), and almost exactly enough profit to buy the equipment you mentioned. And there you go - voila, the big rewards come with little upfront cost. During this 6 months, they could make proposals that would benefit miners and vote for them, setting themselves up for better success when they do the conversion.

I'm not saying that this is a good plan for people - just that it isn't that hard to game the system if someone really, REALLY wants to. You don't need a massive whale with hundreds of thousands of dollars to put in, when we are this small...

[jaapgvk]

Username "senoa" on the pool.biblepay website is just copying/pasting orphan letters with minor tweaking. They copied one of pbrusky's letters and one of mine.

This is just sad

I tried downvoting but strangely it didn't work.

There is also a user named 'brudermicha' who wrote a short letter and then just copy-pasted it 5 times to make his letter seem bigger? Don't know his motivations...

[aikida3k]

I absolutely agree with you, but I don't like it that you keep implying that I say things that I obviously don't. I never said that we should only concentrate on increasing the mining base.

I am actually with you on the shilling, and I said that you had some good ideas. I actually made a proposal to actively go out and shill.

I was just saying that CURRENTLY probably most of our (potential) users are miners, and that these miners are also people that can potentially do very good things to the project (not as miners, but as contributors to the project in intellectual ways).

We need both obviously. I am only thinking about how we can achieve the MOST user adaptation, and how we can have the most fair distribution of coins. And I think that large part in having a good coin-distribution lies in having a LOT of miners from the start, competing for BBP.  

I actually bought a HP Proliant DL380 G5 for 50 Euro's. Got about 8K RAC out of it, which was quite nice. I have now stopped all mining btw.

I am looking at the demand from the current mining base and investors and what I see is not good: there is currently less than 1 BTC on the buy side, on the demand.  That is bad.  Is increasing the mining base your solution for increasing the demand?  I don't think that is viable.  More miners will come with higher prices, it's pretty much a given.  But the current problem is how to get higher prices CONSISTENTLY?  Because we don't pump and stay there, I believe it is in the coin's best interest to leave the current staking requirement where it is and instead concentrate on getting people to see reasons why they would want to own Biblepay.  I believe working through churches is a part of that.

Nice find on your G5!

You're a nicer and more generous guy than I am.

Thanks

Increasing both mining base AND non-miner investors is obviously the path with the most change of succeeding. Lowering the staking-requirements will probably move the market in a negative way short-term, since a lot of BBP will become unlocked. But still I think that if we started with a lower BBP/RAC requirement, we would now have more miners on board.

I agree with your idea about working through churches for example. We REALLY need that. I'm for all kinds of exposure! That's why I really pushed on getting a 'bigger' website, with a blog and lots of information/manuals. That's also why I helped Habib organizing his tour in Ghana, and why I am currently working on a potentially great way to get more investors on board (but I can't really release any information on that right now).

So from what I understand, here is our disagreement: You believe that lowering the staking requirement will incentivize more miners to mine, which in turn they will buy Biblepay to stake.  You believe there is an optimum level of staking to draw miners in and buy Biblepay.  And you want to work on getting investor interest in the coin.

Whereas I believe increasing the miners without increasing the price will lead to lower miner rewards.  I believe that we should work with our current stake level and instead concentrate on investor interest in the coin because of the reason that we have greater than 75% of total supply locked up.  I believe that the best way to show success is by watching the demand on the buy side of the coin increase.  And once that milestone has been met, then we could talk about lowering staking requirements.  I really do believe we should wait for consistently higher prices and consistently higher demand before we lower staking requirements.

That is the crux of our debate.

[leetlezee]

Username "senoa" on the pool.biblepay website is just copying/pasting orphan letters with minor tweaking. They copied one of pbrusky's letters and one of mine.

This is just sad

I tried downvoting but strangely it didn't work.

There is also a user named 'brudermicha' who wrote a short letter and then just copy-pasted it 5 times to make his letter seem bigger? Don't know his motivations...

From my time spent reading this thread, seems to happen fairly frequently, I wonder if a script could be used to weed out copy-pasted letters and letters that repeat themselves.

What's really annoying is senoa's letter that blatantly copied pbrusky's, got more upvotes than pbrusky's!

[aikida3k]

Another curious point is the economics of mining vs a sanctuary - if we want to play the numbers game. I'll assume 1 BBP = ~.0034 USD.

I currently have  2 sancs that cost me $5/month each ($10/month total) and net me ~4800 BBP/day each (so let's say 9600 BBP /day, or 9600*365/12 = 292000 BBP/month).
Even at today's rates, that's about $1000/month.

So I'm spending $10/month to get $1000/month back - assuming I can stake/reserve 3000000 BBP, meaning I'm reserving about $10k of coins.

That's a pretty ludicrous payback, and the only drawback is that I had to have $10k to get started.

Now doing it the mining way is very profitable as well - you are saying that a 200K RAC gets you $108/day, or $3285/month (108*365/12), for an upfront equipment cost of $5200 and a staking balance of about $13000.

I'll also assume that energy costs (which I don't have with a rented, hosted server) costs you about $30/month/server, or about $780/month. (It could be slightly different).

Now let's do some analysis:

Mining is OBVIOUSLY more profitable. A buy-in (between equipment and staking) of $18000 gets you $30000 profit in the first 12 months. Where as sanctuaries require far less ($10000 upfront for 2, all staking), and gain a profit of $11800 in the first 12 months.

Now, I would say that these are two very different user bases - HOWEVER...if a user was interested in becoming a power miner, one way to get into it would be to start with the lower costs of running a few sancs for a couple of months.

If you did that for say, 6 months, you'd have more than enough BBP to cover the mining staking (converting your sanc stake + sanc daily rewards), and almost exactly enough profit to buy the equipment you mentioned. And there you go - voila, the big rewards come with little upfront cost. During this 6 months, they could make proposals that would benefit miners and vote for them, setting themselves up for better success when they do the conversion.

I'm not saying that this is a good plan for people - just that it isn't that hard to game the system if someone really, REALLY wants to. You don't need a massive whale with hundreds of thousands of dollars to put in, when we are this small...

Yes, that is roughly the way I was blessed into the project.  Although the mining rewards should decrease more rapidly than the sanctuary rewards, that is why it is imperative that we get a way to get prices to increase in order to preserve mining margins for everyone: for the miners, for the growth of the network, for the orphans.  

Each server draws about 300W so 300*24 is 7.2 KWh per day.  My electricity cost is about .067 per KWh so that is about .48 to run a server without cooling per day.  Obviously mining over the winter is cheaper than the summer.  With cooling your $30 / mo/server is probably not far off, over the winter, its about half that.  You could also throw in something for rent.  Internet access isn't that much.  I was blessed to find this project before the sanctuaries and bought enough for some.  As for the vote for stake to RAC, everyone was invited to participate; it wasn't just held by the sanctuaries.  

[jaapgvk]

I absolutely agree with you, but I don't like it that you keep implying that I say things that I obviously don't. I never said that we should only concentrate on increasing the mining base.

I am actually with you on the shilling, and I said that you had some good ideas. I actually made a proposal to actively go out and shill.

I was just saying that CURRENTLY probably most of our (potential) users are miners, and that these miners are also people that can potentially do very good things to the project (not as miners, but as contributors to the project in intellectual ways).

We need both obviously. I am only thinking about how we can achieve the MOST user adaptation, and how we can have the most fair distribution of coins. And I think that large part in having a good coin-distribution lies in having a LOT of miners from the start, competing for BBP.  

I actually bought a HP Proliant DL380 G5 for 50 Euro's. Got about 8K RAC out of it, which was quite nice. I have now stopped all mining btw.

I am looking at the demand from the current mining base and investors and what I see is not good: there is currently less than 1 BTC on the buy side, on the demand.  That is bad.  Is increasing the mining base your solution for increasing the demand?  I don't think that is viable.  More miners will come with higher prices, it's pretty much a given.  But the current problem is how to get higher prices CONSISTENTLY?  Because we don't pump and stay there, I believe it is in the coin's best interest to leave the current staking requirement where it is and instead concentrate on getting people to see reasons why they would want to own Biblepay.  I believe working through churches is a part of that.

Nice find on your G5!

You're a nicer and more generous guy than I am.

Thanks

Increasing both mining base AND non-miner investors is obviously the path with the most change of succeeding. Lowering the staking-requirements will probably move the market in a negative way short-term, since a lot of BBP will become unlocked. But still I think that if we started with a lower BBP/RAC requirement, we would now have more miners on board.

I agree with your idea about working through churches for example. We REALLY need that. I'm for all kinds of exposure! That's why I really pushed on getting a 'bigger' website, with a blog and lots of information/manuals. That's also why I helped Habib organizing his tour in Ghana, and why I am currently working on a potentially great way to get more investors on board (but I can't really release any information on that right now).

So from what I understand, here is our disagreement: You believe that lowering the staking requirement will incentivize more miners to mine, which in turn they will buy Biblepay to stake.  You believe there is an optimum level of staking to draw miners in and buy Biblepay.  And you want to work on getting investor interest in the coin.

Whereas I believe increasing the miners without increasing the price will lead to lower miner rewards.  I believe that we should work with our current stake level and instead concentrate on investor interest in the coin because of the reason that we have greater than 75% of total supply locked up.  I believe that the best way to show success is by watching the demand on the buy side of the coin increase.  And once that milestone has been met, then we could talk about lowering staking requirements.  I really do believe we should wait for consistently higher prices and consistently higher demand before we lower staking requirements.

That is the crux of our debate.

Well, I actually believe in a hybrid of what you're saying:
I believe that lowering the staking requirement will incentivize more miners to mine.
I believe thus that lowering the staking requirement will bring us more users.
I believe increasing the miners without increasing the price will lead to lower miner rewards.
I believe increasing the user base will increase the price.
I believe that we need some shilling.

I don't think that lower per miner rewards are a bad thing per se: it's a sign of more competition/adoption, and thus a more even distribution of coins. It's basically how capitalism works.

If people believe in the project long-term, they will mine even with low rewards (see Bitcoin, that's all mining on the margin). If they are just here for short-term profit, I don't care if they leave.

[616westwarmoth]

Another curious point is the economics of mining vs a sanctuary - if we want to play the numbers game. I'll assume 1 BBP = ~.0034 USD.

I currently have  2 sancs that cost me $5/month each ($10/month total) and net me ~4800 BBP/day each (so let's say 9600 BBP /day, or 9600*365/12 = 292000 BBP/month).
Even at today's rates, that's about $1000/month.

So I'm spending $10/month to get $1000/month back - assuming I can stake/reserve 3000000 BBP, meaning I'm reserving about $10k of coins.

That's a pretty ludicrous payback, and the only drawback is that I had to have $10k to get started.

Now doing it the mining way is very profitable as well - you are saying that a 200K RAC gets you $108/day, or $3285/month (108*365/12), for an upfront equipment cost of $5200 and a staking balance of about $13000.

I'll also assume that energy costs (which I don't have with a rented, hosted server) costs you about $30/month/server, or about $780/month. (It could be slightly different).

Now let's do some analysis:

Mining is OBVIOUSLY more profitable. A buy-in (between equipment and staking) of $18000 gets you $30000 profit in the first 12 months. Where as sanctuaries require far less ($10000 upfront for 2, all staking), and gain a profit of $11800 in the first 12 months.

Now, I would say that these are two very different user bases - HOWEVER...if a user was interested in becoming a power miner, one way to get into it would be to start with the lower costs of running a few sancs for a couple of months.

If you did that for say, 6 months, you'd have more than enough BBP to cover the mining staking (converting your sanc stake + sanc daily rewards), and almost exactly enough profit to buy the equipment you mentioned. And there you go - voila, the big rewards come with little upfront cost. During this 6 months, they could make proposals that would benefit miners and vote for them, setting themselves up for better success when they do the conversion.

I'm not saying that this is a good plan for people - just that it isn't that hard to game the system if someone really, REALLY wants to. You don't need a massive whale with hundreds of thousands of dollars to put in, when we are this small...

Yes, that is roughly the way I was blessed into the project.  Although the mining rewards should decrease more rapidly than the sanctuary rewards, that is why it is imperative that we get a way to get prices to increase in order to preserve mining margins for everyone: for the miners, for the growth of the network, for the orphans.  

Each server draws about 300W so 300*24 is 7.2 KWh per day.  My electricity cost is about .067 per KWh so that is about .48 to run a server without cooling per day.  Obviously mining over the winter is cheaper than the summer.  With cooling your $30 / mo/server is probably not far off, over the winter, its about half that.  You could also throw in something for rent.  Internet access isn't that much.  I was blessed to find this project before the sanctuaries and bought enough for some.  As for the vote for stake to RAC, everyone was invited to participate; it wasn't just held by the sanctuaries.  

My data points were roughly the lines of this.  Starting from a baseline of 0 coins and 0 computers, buying enough hardware and coin to fully stake it was cost beneficial versus buying the same amount of coins you would need to make Masternodes for the same daily rewards.  You would have hardware of some value and coin of some value, higher expenses with PoDC but could ultimately get in the door on a moderate operation for a cheaper price.  The main downside was if the coin rapidly appreciated, you wouldn't gain the appreciation of your holdings as much going hardware, but by the same token, you would still have moderately valuable hardware if the price collapsed.

We're not hearing ANY complaining how Masternodes are way overpriced.  The necessity to stake at the levels that were voted in (which I was personally not in favor of but have since become more favorable to) locks coins up.  For a brand new user, buying coins to PoDC is NOT a hardship as the ROI is still very good by normal standards (even if it's not in the 100%+ range).  And the beauty is on a percentage basis, the ROI is the same for a person with one PoDC machine or a fleet of servers.  But much like the person mining Ethereum with one GPU is going to receive less coin than the person running 18 GPU, the investment ratio remains comparable.  You spend 10x as much, you make (or lose) 10x as much.  We all have different situations, different thresh holds for how much we can afford or choose to afford, but in the end, if you have one machine grinding out 1K RAC you get 1/10th as much as the user with 10K RAC but you also have 1/10ths the expense for staking and operations.

Increasing, decreasing, leaving the staking requirement alone, there is no guarantee what any of these will do beyond the idea that a dramatic reduction or elimination will leave us wide open to botnets.  But increasing the requirement COULD increase the price dramatically which COULD bring more users in after a higher dollar reward or drive existing users away.  Or it COULD decrease the price dramatically and that COULD increase the users who are making a lower ROI or chase existing users away due to reduced rewards.  In the end, changing staking is possible but has no guaranteed results.

The real issue that is being expressed (but not outright said) is the first mover advantage that early adopters of this coin (like every other coin) have versus new users.  We should do our best to help new users into the coin, but the simple fact remains that early adopters grabbed coins at 1/5th the price when the coin was unsteady and get a better return based on their purchase price.  But they still get the same return as anyone else based on the current cash values.  The coin may appreciate, it may stagnate in price, it may fall.  No one really knows.  PoDC mining is still profitable on most levels AND helps advance the scientific research community.  I've said it before, but in a very very short time we've become approximately 20% of the research at Rosetta@home and about 1% of the research at World Community Grid.  In less than 3 months, we're already the 15th biggest contributor of all time at R@h and the 575th biggest at WCG in under ONE month.

[jaapgvk]

Another curious point is the economics of mining vs a sanctuary - if we want to play the numbers game. I'll assume 1 BBP = ~.0034 USD.

I currently have  2 sancs that cost me $5/month each ($10/month total) and net me ~4800 BBP/day each (so let's say 9600 BBP /day, or 9600*365/12 = 292000 BBP/month).
Even at today's rates, that's about $1000/month.

So I'm spending $10/month to get $1000/month back - assuming I can stake/reserve 3000000 BBP, meaning I'm reserving about $10k of coins.

That's a pretty ludicrous payback, and the only drawback is that I had to have $10k to get started.

Now doing it the mining way is very profitable as well - you are saying that a 200K RAC gets you $108/day, or $3285/month (108*365/12), for an upfront equipment cost of $5200 and a staking balance of about $13000.

I'll also assume that energy costs (which I don't have with a rented, hosted server) costs you about $30/month/server, or about $780/month. (It could be slightly different).

Now let's do some analysis:

Mining is OBVIOUSLY more profitable. A buy-in (between equipment and staking) of $18000 gets you $30000 profit in the first 12 months. Where as sanctuaries require far less ($10000 upfront for 2, all staking), and gain a profit of $11800 in the first 12 months.

Now, I would say that these are two very different user bases - HOWEVER...if a user was interested in becoming a power miner, one way to get into it would be to start with the lower costs of running a few sancs for a couple of months.

If you did that for say, 6 months, you'd have more than enough BBP to cover the mining staking (converting your sanc stake + sanc daily rewards), and almost exactly enough profit to buy the equipment you mentioned. And there you go - voila, the big rewards come with little upfront cost. During this 6 months, they could make proposals that would benefit miners and vote for them, setting themselves up for better success when they do the conversion.

I'm not saying that this is a good plan for people - just that it isn't that hard to game the system if someone really, REALLY wants to. You don't need a massive whale with hundreds of thousands of dollars to put in, when we are this small...

Yes, that is roughly the way I was blessed into the project.  Although the mining rewards should decrease more rapidly than the sanctuary rewards, that is why it is imperative that we get a way to get prices to increase in order to preserve mining margins for everyone: for the miners, for the growth of the network, for the orphans.  

Each server draws about 300W so 300*24 is 7.2 KWh per day.  My electricity cost is about .067 per KWh so that is about .48 to run a server without cooling per day.  Obviously mining over the winter is cheaper than the summer.  With cooling your $30 / mo/server is probably not far off, over the winter, its about half that.  You could also throw in something for rent.  Internet access isn't that much.  I was blessed to find this project before the sanctuaries and bought enough for some.  As for the vote for stake to RAC, everyone was invited to participate; it wasn't just held by the sanctuaries.  

My data points were roughly the lines of this.  Starting from a baseline of 0 coins and 0 computers, buying enough hardware and coin to fully stake it was cost beneficial versus buying the same amount of coins you would need to make Masternodes for the same daily rewards.  You would have hardware of some value and coin of some value, higher expenses with PoDC but could ultimately get in the door on a moderate operation for a cheaper price.  The main downside was if the coin rapidly appreciated, you wouldn't gain the appreciation of your holdings as much going hardware, but by the same token, you would still have moderately valuable hardware if the price collapsed.

We're not hearing ANY complaining how Masternodes are way overpriced.  The necessity to stake at the levels that were voted in (which I was personally not in favor of but have since become more favorable to) locks coins up.  For a brand new user, buying coins to PoDC is NOT a hardship as the ROI is still very good by normal standards (even if it's not in the 100%+ range).  And the beauty is on a percentage basis, the ROI is the same for a person with one PoDC machine or a fleet of servers.  But much like the person mining Ethereum with one GPU is going to receive less coin than the person running 18 GPU, the investment ratio remains comparable.  You spend 10x as much, you make (or lose) 10x as much.  We all have different situations, different thresh holds for how much we can afford or choose to afford, but in the end, if you have one machine grinding out 1K RAC you get 1/10th as much as the user with 10K RAC but you also have 1/10ths the expense for staking and operations.

Increasing, decreasing, leaving the staking requirement alone, there is no guarantee what any of these will do beyond the idea that a dramatic reduction or elimination will leave us wide open to botnets.  But increasing the requirement COULD increase the price dramatically which COULD bring more users in after a higher dollar reward or drive existing users away.  Or it COULD decrease the price dramatically and that COULD increase the users who are making a lower ROI or chase existing users away due to reduced rewards.  In the end, changing staking is possible but has no guaranteed results.

The real issue that is being expressed (but not outright said) is the first mover advantage that early adopters of this coin (like every other coin) have versus new users.  We should do our best to help new users into the coin, but the simple fact remains that early adopters grabbed coins at 1/5th the price when the coin was unsteady and get a better return based on their purchase price.  But they still get the same return as anyone else based on the current cash values.  The coin may appreciate, it may stagnate in price, it may fall.  No one really knows.  PoDC mining is still profitable on most levels AND helps advance the scientific research community.  I've said it before, but in a very very short time we've become approximately 20% of the research at Rosetta@home and about 1% of the research at World Community Grid.  In less than 3 months, we're already the 15th biggest contributor of all time at R@h and the 575th biggest at WCG in under ONE month.

I agree with you on all fronts. Lowering the BBP/RAC gives us no guarantee that the price will rise. I would also like to say that I'm not a proponent of lowering the staking at this point in time, because I don't know all the variables. I'm just saying that the high staking requirements have been holding people back from starting mining (and in extension of that, they have probably moved on to other projects while they could have possibly been of added value to us).

In the end, I just want as many new users as possible, in whichever way possible. I actually think the best way to do that, is to add things to BiblePay that give it value (software, real-world applications, you name it). And get more exposure for the project.

Indeed the ROI on mining is pretty good at the moment, if you can pay for the staking.

[aikida3k]

I absolutely agree with you, but I don't like it that you keep implying that I say things that I obviously don't. I never said that we should only concentrate on increasing the mining base.

I am actually with you on the shilling, and I said that you had some good ideas. I actually made a proposal to actively go out and shill.

I was just saying that CURRENTLY probably most of our (potential) users are miners, and that these miners are also people that can potentially do very good things to the project (not as miners, but as contributors to the project in intellectual ways).

We need both obviously. I am only thinking about how we can achieve the MOST user adaptation, and how we can have the most fair distribution of coins. And I think that large part in having a good coin-distribution lies in having a LOT of miners from the start, competing for BBP.  

I actually bought a HP Proliant DL380 G5 for 50 Euro's. Got about 8K RAC out of it, which was quite nice. I have now stopped all mining btw.

I am looking at the demand from the current mining base and investors and what I see is not good: there is currently less than 1 BTC on the buy side, on the demand.  That is bad.  Is increasing the mining base your solution for increasing the demand?  I don't think that is viable.  More miners will come with higher prices, it's pretty much a given.  But the current problem is how to get higher prices CONSISTENTLY?  Because we don't pump and stay there, I believe it is in the coin's best interest to leave the current staking requirement where it is and instead concentrate on getting people to see reasons why they would want to own Biblepay.  I believe working through churches is a part of that.

Nice find on your G5!

You're a nicer and more generous guy than I am.

Thanks

Increasing both mining base AND non-miner investors is obviously the path with the most change of succeeding. Lowering the staking-requirements will probably move the market in a negative way short-term, since a lot of BBP will become unlocked. But still I think that if we started with a lower BBP/RAC requirement, we would now have more miners on board.

I agree with your idea about working through churches for example. We REALLY need that. I'm for all kinds of exposure! That's why I really pushed on getting a 'bigger' website, with a blog and lots of information/manuals. That's also why I helped Habib organizing his tour in Ghana, and why I am currently working on a potentially great way to get more investors on board (but I can't really release any information on that right now).

So from what I understand, here is our disagreement: You believe that lowering the staking requirement will incentivize more miners to mine, which in turn they will buy Biblepay to stake.  You believe there is an optimum level of staking to draw miners in and buy Biblepay.  And you want to work on getting investor interest in the coin.

Whereas I believe increasing the miners without increasing the price will lead to lower miner rewards.  I believe that we should work with our current stake level and instead concentrate on investor interest in the coin because of the reason that we have greater than 75% of total supply locked up.  I believe that the best way to show success is by watching the demand on the buy side of the coin increase.  And once that milestone has been met, then we could talk about lowering staking requirements.  I really do believe we should wait for consistently higher prices and consistently higher demand before we lower staking requirements.

That is the crux of our debate.

Well, I actually believe in a hybrid of what you're saying:
I believe that lowering the staking requirement will incentivize more miners to mine.
I believe thus that lowering the staking requirement will bring us more users.
I believe increasing the miners without increasing the price will lead to lower miner rewards.
I believe increasing the user base will increase the price.
I believe that we need some shilling.

I don't think that lower per miner rewards are a bad thing per se: it's a sign of more competition/adoption, and thus a more even distribution of coins. It's basically how capitalism works.

If people believe in the project long-term, they will mine even with low rewards (see Bitcoin, that's all mining on the margin). If they are just here for short-term profit, I don't care if they leave.

Capitalism works based on incentives.  The greater the opportunity for profit, the more risk, in general, one is willing to take.  Bitcoin doesn't have low rewards.  When Bitcoin was $1,000 and the reward was 25 per block the total reward was $25,000 per block (the price and rewards collapsed down to 25*$200 or $5,000 per block).  Now at 12.5 per block and $9,000 the reward is $112,500*.  The rewards and miner profitability can be stewarded by keeping the stake level and shilling even with lower block rewards.

*inblue caught my calculator mistake here

[aikida3k]

Another curious point is the economics of mining vs a sanctuary - if we want to play the numbers game. I'll assume 1 BBP = ~.0034 USD.

I currently have  2 sancs that cost me $5/month each ($10/month total) and net me ~4800 BBP/day each (so let's say 9600 BBP /day, or 9600*365/12 = 292000 BBP/month).
Even at today's rates, that's about $1000/month.

So I'm spending $10/month to get $1000/month back - assuming I can stake/reserve 3000000 BBP, meaning I'm reserving about $10k of coins.

That's a pretty ludicrous payback, and the only drawback is that I had to have $10k to get started.

Now doing it the mining way is very profitable as well - you are saying that a 200K RAC gets you $108/day, or $3285/month (108*365/12), for an upfront equipment cost of $5200 and a staking balance of about $13000.

I'll also assume that energy costs (which I don't have with a rented, hosted server) costs you about $30/month/server, or about $780/month. (It could be slightly different).

Now let's do some analysis:

Mining is OBVIOUSLY more profitable. A buy-in (between equipment and staking) of $18000 gets you $30000 profit in the first 12 months. Where as sanctuaries require far less ($10000 upfront for 2, all staking), and gain a profit of $11800 in the first 12 months.

Now, I would say that these are two very different user bases - HOWEVER...if a user was interested in becoming a power miner, one way to get into it would be to start with the lower costs of running a few sancs for a couple of months.

If you did that for say, 6 months, you'd have more than enough BBP to cover the mining staking (converting your sanc stake + sanc daily rewards), and almost exactly enough profit to buy the equipment you mentioned. And there you go - voila, the big rewards come with little upfront cost. During this 6 months, they could make proposals that would benefit miners and vote for them, setting themselves up for better success when they do the conversion.

I'm not saying that this is a good plan for people - just that it isn't that hard to game the system if someone really, REALLY wants to. You don't need a massive whale with hundreds of thousands of dollars to put in, when we are this small...

Yes, that is roughly the way I was blessed into the project.  Although the mining rewards should decrease more rapidly than the sanctuary rewards, that is why it is imperative that we get a way to get prices to increase in order to preserve mining margins for everyone: for the miners, for the growth of the network, for the orphans.  

Each server draws about 300W so 300*24 is 7.2 KWh per day.  My electricity cost is about .067 per KWh so that is about .48 to run a server without cooling per day.  Obviously mining over the winter is cheaper than the summer.  With cooling your $30 / mo/server is probably not far off, over the winter, its about half that.  You could also throw in something for rent.  Internet access isn't that much.  I was blessed to find this project before the sanctuaries and bought enough for some.  As for the vote for stake to RAC, everyone was invited to participate; it wasn't just held by the sanctuaries.  

My data points were roughly the lines of this.  Starting from a baseline of 0 coins and 0 computers, buying enough hardware and coin to fully stake it was cost beneficial versus buying the same amount of coins you would need to make Masternodes for the same daily rewards.  You would have hardware of some value and coin of some value, higher expenses with PoDC but could ultimately get in the door on a moderate operation for a cheaper price.  The main downside was if the coin rapidly appreciated, you wouldn't gain the appreciation of your holdings as much going hardware, but by the same token, you would still have moderately valuable hardware if the price collapsed.

We're not hearing ANY complaining how Masternodes are way overpriced.  The necessity to stake at the levels that were voted in (which I was personally not in favor of but have since become more favorable to) locks coins up.  For a brand new user, buying coins to PoDC is NOT a hardship as the ROI is still very good by normal standards (even if it's not in the 100%+ range).  And the beauty is on a percentage basis, the ROI is the same for a person with one PoDC machine or a fleet of servers.  But much like the person mining Ethereum with one GPU is going to receive less coin than the person running 18 GPU, the investment ratio remains comparable.  You spend 10x as much, you make (or lose) 10x as much.  We all have different situations, different thresh holds for how much we can afford or choose to afford, but in the end, if you have one machine grinding out 1K RAC you get 1/10th as much as the user with 10K RAC but you also have 1/10ths the expense for staking and operations.

Increasing, decreasing, leaving the staking requirement alone, there is no guarantee what any of these will do beyond the idea that a dramatic reduction or elimination will leave us wide open to botnets.  But increasing the requirement COULD increase the price dramatically which COULD bring more users in after a higher dollar reward or drive existing users away.  Or it COULD decrease the price dramatically and that COULD increase the users who are making a lower ROI or chase existing users away due to reduced rewards.  In the end, changing staking is possible but has no guaranteed results.

The real issue that is being expressed (but not outright said) is the first mover advantage that early adopters of this coin (like every other coin) have versus new users.  We should do our best to help new users into the coin, but the simple fact remains that early adopters grabbed coins at 1/5th the price when the coin was unsteady and get a better return based on their purchase price.  But they still get the same return as anyone else based on the current cash values.  The coin may appreciate, it may stagnate in price, it may fall.  No one really knows.  PoDC mining is still profitable on most levels AND helps advance the scientific research community.  I've said it before, but in a very very short time we've become approximately 20% of the research at Rosetta@home and about 1% of the research at World Community Grid.  In less than 3 months, we're already the 15th biggest contributor of all time at R@h and the 575th biggest at WCG in under ONE month.

I agree with you on all fronts. Lowering the BBP/RAC gives us no guarantee that the price will rise. I would also like to say that I'm not a proponent of lowering the staking at this point in time, because I don't know all the variables. I'm just saying that the high staking requirements have been holding people back from starting mining (and in extension of that, they have probably moved on to other projects while they could have possibly been of added value to us).

In the end, I just want as many new users as possible, in whichever way possible. I actually think the best way to do that, is to add things to BiblePay that give it value (software, real-world applications, you name it). And get more exposure for the project.

Indeed the ROI on mining is pretty good at the moment, if you can pay for the staking.

Okay. Cool.  I think you can model that instantiating staking has lead to consistently higher prices.  Before we had masternodes, the price was 10-15 sat.  After masternodes the price consistently jumped to 20-30 sat.  Now with staking we seem to be consistently a little higher.  I think staking helps and that we need more buyers on the demand side.

[Dimarzio123]

I agree that we need to attract more followers
The idea of paper wallets sounds good - but why only paper?
Why not offer a sign-up bonus on the web site - say 100-500 BBP for those who make the effort to download and run a mining wallet for xx days;
Also spread the word on forum / chats / etc
Any marketing is good for BBP
PM

You're right, znffal, I went ahead and changed the original post. 

So I just wanted to say that it sounds like you have some great ideas and that you should consider putting in a proposal into the PR section of the monthly budget.

Thanks for the encouragement!  I'm looking for someone to work with right now; I don't want to say I'll do it, take the BBP for the proposal and not have a deliverable for a long time.  The one idea is combining the bbp faucet with paper wallet generator, and I'm not yet sure how to integrate those two in order to generate say 1,000 unique bbp paper wallet addresses and have the faucet deposit 5 bbp in each address with instructions of how to find Biblepay online, and what our purpose is.  As an aside, I'm restudying C++ that I took in college to brush up and to at least be able to understand and audit some of the code better.  Not much of anything more ambitious but perhaps eventually I could work on the paper wallet faucet if no one else steps up. Thanks again.

[616westwarmoth]

I agree that we need to attract more followers
The idea of paper wallets sounds good - but why only paper?
Why not offer a sign-up bonus on the web site - say 100-500 BBP for those who make the effort to download and run a mining wallet for xx days;
Also spread the word on forum / chats / etc
Any marketing is good for BBP
PM

The issue with free BBP is it becomes a lot of work to avoid people cheating.  And I'd be really surprised if the rate-of-retention (users still involved after a period) was better than 1% after four weeks time.  So having a system in place to help retain is good.  That's why, for the expense, I would rather see something like coin listings or other major development which will bring eyeballs to the coin.