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

[slovakia]

Therefore we have 2,500 total users - as I said.

Show me 2500 active users. You're not allowed to insult me in public without proof. If I'm wrong, I'll sincerely apologize. I'm man enough to admit it if I'm wrong.

2500 actives users is may be traders,buyers,investors ....

[1714011005]

1714011005

[1714011005]

1714011005

[1714011005]

1714011005

[1714011005]

1714011005

[1714011005]

1714011005

[togoshigekata]

"No, it was ~12% premine. Another ~60% was the sale." -Vitalik (Creator of Ethereum)
https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1048082496233996294

"That’s a 72% premine ladies and gentlemen lol #justcryptothings
minus bitcoin the next top 3 crypto’s were a 72% premine, 100% premine, and a fork"
https://twitter.com/VoskCoin/status/1048188721986777089

LOL

[dave_bbp]

I really like the proposal of 616west to remove the coin mixing/private send. I tried mixing for months and never really got it to work with BBP (right now I still only have a little over 3k mixed coins; with other coins this is working much better ...). Additionally, if anyone really wants to have "privacy" he can and should revert to the plethora of "cryptonight"-coins. Not to mention the fact that I don't deem it an appropriate (or necessary) feature for a Christian coin.

[jaapgvk]

I've realized that I'm too busy at the moment to create the hardcopy-guide. BiblePay work comes up all the time and the guide gets pushed to the back. Apart from that, we are also adding stuff in a fast pace at the moment, so I don't know how sensible it is to create a hardcopy-guide at the moment with all this development going on.

I once requested 104,210 BBP as a starter-budget for the guide to be able to pay an illustrator if needed, but I never used it. As far as I'm concerned there are two options: a well-known member of the community takes over the hardcopy-guide development and receives that BBP, or I give the BBP to the orphan-wallet.

EDIT: another option is that I use the BBP to pay off some the deficit in the New Exchange Fund.

[bible_pay]

Basically, I would like to see two daily Superblocks.  One for PoDC (which we have) and one equal sized one for Sanctuaries.  Then at the block time, the system would look at which Sanctuaries were enabled and pay each one from the Sanctuary Superblock.  So at block 75,040 there was a PoDC Superblock worth 1,077,065 BBP, and what I'm proposing is at block 75,145 we'd have a Sanctuary Superblock also worth 1,077,065 BBP (subject of course to the 1.5% deflationary emissions modifier).  That superblock would be equally divided among the 336 enabled Sanctuaries, so each would get roughly 3205 BBP.

I don't see the benefit of doing this - its a change that is rooted in - ? Paying a consistent amount to sancs?  Then you could add a proposal to remove DGW.  Imo - Ive explained a couple times why DGW is good for us, so I would vote against it.

A while back I emailed you the idea of having you investigate other proof-of-document-storage coins that are live and floated the idea of installing their software and evaluating each one.  Have you considered doing that yet or would you like us to ask someone else to do it?

I bring this up here, because only one person commented on the idea in the forum, and I did want your opinion of it.  I spelled out why I thought it had merit but to recap:

Would equalize the payments for PoDC and Sanctuaries, would eliminate Sanctuary variability (while retaining DGW for PoBH protection), squash the back-to-back rewards that happen which seem unfair and would give a daily payment for Sanctuary holders which would be a relatively novel masternode concept (and if we got to the point where we had 1500 Sanctuaries, would give quicker feedback that an individual did set it up correctly).

So the change has many upsides in my mind, consistency being just one of them.

I'd also like your thoughts on eliminating coin mixing and private send which the more I speak to people that aren't involved with crypto, they bring up the Dark Web quite often.  This perception that the primary use the average person thinks of is so negative it could impact our growth in the intended religious markets.  Also, since it appears very few people are using it, eliminating it could simplify the code base without much penalty from current user demand.

In the end, I don't want to make a proposal on something you're opposed to as I know you've got a lot on your plate and there is plenty of work.

Finally, on the proof-of-document storage, I took about a week off from crypto in part due to your suggestion I find another coin.  The work I've done researching has to this point been solely data and not hands on.  From a few of the comments in the forum, it appeared things were moving to using that system for internal documents as the primary function, and from the research I've done, we'd be hard pressed to compete on price versus Sia nor ease of use versus something like Dropbox.  But at some point, I've got enough Sia to do some hands on testing, and the other coins out there that do similar aren't very hard to acquire (but I think Sia is the market leader and most relevant).

Thanks - let me think about the ramifications.  I don't wish to see you go and hope you are back permanently.

So on the document storage coins, I think we need to think of other facets characterizing the service as a whole first:  Is it in Production (yes/no),  Est. Time to go live, Centralized/Decentralized infrastucture, Usability/Ease of Use, Speed (how fast can you up/download a file), Reliability (what are the chances of it breaking at random times), Durability (How many drives is it stored on), allows mounting a filesystem yes/no, services file storage or service individual files,  General notes about the experience of using it for a period, Overall Review level, and finally cost per Gig of storage.  

If we could have a volunteer make a spreadsheet of these elements per doc-storage coin, this would greatly enhance our development and roadmap abilities.  (I said once before I dont think price is completely relevant yet when comparing a decentralized storage price to centralized - except for mass document storage, but yes, lets put it on the sheet anyhow), but realize in my opinion, the price in a new endeavor is the least important - as we are in alpha - another words, we are designing a feature in R&D with a high prototype cost - the price could come down later.  Im really more aligned with making the ease of use file transfer, encrypted secure file transfer, business objects features, but I dont want to rule out document storage either as it is a viable option as a biblepay miner (another words, if we have a second miner - other than PODC, we may have a good backup candidate if boinc ever goes down, or for some reason boinc becomes untrusted by the supermajority, it would be nice to flip a spork and start document mining).  

I think you have a good point on this elimination of private send and mixing, possibly.  I want us to be known as having 100% integrity, and know that using BiblePay they are still 100% anonymous if they wish to use TOR themselves - share no data and use nicknames.  Another words, I dont want to introduce things that reveals home identities to make people feel unsafe, but I would also want a coin with the highest level of integrity, so that we are not associated in any way with the dark web.  I also feel that from Togos experience of mixing - we may be enabling a feature that slows down the wallet if people start using it widely (as Dave_bbp pointed out ours isnt working well).  We could potentially remove it from the UI completely and make it a 'use at your own risk' RPC feature, something for a power user like Togo, but take the stance that we dont support the feature, and we dont add features to the wallet that make you lose privacy (unless you use them, like for instance adding your long/lat and email to a contact record yourself).  The privacy issue is tough because as a Christian you have to be a stand up non-shady individual, and thats why I ended up offering the long-lat, as if things get bad (on a civil unrest level),  we at least want to organize Christian camps of people together, and as a church pastor, you must publically expose where your church is so people can worship in person (IE church tithing).  However, a single Mom may not want to expose her long-lat, with good reason.  (Its also related to timing, were obviously not in the great tribulation yet .

[bible_pay]

Would equalize the payments for PoDC and Sanctuaries

http://wiki.biblepay.org/Economics

Well, there is this document on the wiki called Economics.

Code:

3% is given to Proof-Of-Biblehash (heat POW) miners
38.5% is given to the longest waiting Sanctuary
38.5% is given to the Proof-Of-Distributed Computing (Cancer Research budget)

I don't know, it might actually be nice to adhere to the percentages since that is written in the wiki (although it conflicts with https://wiki.biblepay.org/Main_Page)

is what everyone expects.

Finally, on the proof-of-document storage...  I think Sia is the market leader and most relevant).

Storj also has a working product. FileCoin, MaidSafe. Chia (Bram Cohen's Proof of Storage, vaporware). For video, there is Bittorrent/Tron, Flixxo, and DTube (based off Steem & IPFS). IPFS itself is free and there's a lot of usable products already. I think PoDS is interesting to combine with crypto transactions, but its value remains to be seen. I think as a storage platform it is dead in the water. As a layer for application of some sort, there'd be more value. For example, you send BBP with an IPFS document encrypted so only the recipient can open with their private key. Its an easy way to transmit documents securely. Same idea as signed messages but it'd be a bigger payload hosted on IPFS.

I corrected the Main_Page to make it point to the wiki page for the breakdown, which is also in agreement with the coin code.

However, I find it very disturbing that you are claiming that we are not distributing what we promise ("There is this document on the wiki called economics")... alluding that we are doing something shady here.  Sun, you really need to start thinking about what you are typing before you type it. 

We do exactly what we say we do here at BiblePay, and we don't mislead investors.

[sunk818]

Would equalize the payments for PoDC and Sanctuaries

http://wiki.biblepay.org/Economics

Well, there is this document on the wiki called Economics.

Code:

3% is given to Proof-Of-Biblehash (heat POW) miners
38.5% is given to the longest waiting Sanctuary
38.5% is given to the Proof-Of-Distributed Computing (Cancer Research budget)

I don't know, it might actually be nice to adhere to the percentages since that is written in the wiki (although it conflicts with https://wiki.biblepay.org/Main_Page)

is what everyone expects.

Finally, on the proof-of-document storage...  I think Sia is the market leader and most relevant).

Storj also has a working product. FileCoin, MaidSafe. Chia (Bram Cohen's Proof of Storage, vaporware). For video, there is Bittorrent/Tron, Flixxo, and DTube (based off Steem & IPFS). IPFS itself is free and there's a lot of usable products already. I think PoDS is interesting to combine with crypto transactions, but its value remains to be seen. I think as a storage platform it is dead in the water. As a layer for application of some sort, there'd be more value. For example, you send BBP with an IPFS document encrypted so only the recipient can open with their private key. Its an easy way to transmit documents securely. Same idea as signed messages but it'd be a bigger payload hosted on IPFS.

I corrected the Main_Page to make it point to the wiki page for the breakdown, which is also in agreement with the coin code.

However, I find it very disturbing that you are claiming that we are not distributing what we promise ("There is this document on the wiki called economics")... alluding that we are doing something shady here.  Sun, you really need to start thinking about what you are typing before you type it.  

We do exactly what we say we do here at BiblePay, and we don't mislead investors.

Show me where PoBH (PoW mining) is distributing 3% as it is currently designed? Dark Gravity Wave (DGW) changes the payout amount per block which changes the percentages.

[bible_pay]

Would equalize the payments for PoDC and Sanctuaries

http://wiki.biblepay.org/Economics

Well, there is this document on the wiki called Economics.

Code:

3% is given to Proof-Of-Biblehash (heat POW) miners
38.5% is given to the longest waiting Sanctuary
38.5% is given to the Proof-Of-Distributed Computing (Cancer Research budget)

I don't know, it might actually be nice to adhere to the percentages since that is written in the wiki (although it conflicts with https://wiki.biblepay.org/Main_Page)

is what everyone expects.

Finally, on the proof-of-document storage...  I think Sia is the market leader and most relevant).

Storj also has a working product. FileCoin, MaidSafe. Chia (Bram Cohen's Proof of Storage, vaporware). For video, there is Bittorrent/Tron, Flixxo, and DTube (based off Steem & IPFS). IPFS itself is free and there's a lot of usable products already. I think PoDS is interesting to combine with crypto transactions, but its value remains to be seen. I think as a storage platform it is dead in the water. As a layer for application of some sort, there'd be more value. For example, you send BBP with an IPFS document encrypted so only the recipient can open with their private key. Its an easy way to transmit documents securely. Same idea as signed messages but it'd be a bigger payload hosted on IPFS.

I corrected the Main_Page to make it point to the wiki page for the breakdown, which is also in agreement with the coin code.

However, I find it very disturbing that you are claiming that we are not distributing what we promise ("There is this document on the wiki called economics")... alluding that we are doing something shady here.  Sun, you really need to start thinking about what you are typing before you type it. 

We do exactly what we say we do here at BiblePay, and we don't mislead investors.

Show me where PoBH (PoW mining) is distributing 3% as it is currently designed. Dark Gravity Wave (DGW) changes the payout amount per block which changes the percentages.

The very first sentence in our "Economics" wiki explains that we have a variable block emission (from 20K down to 5K), and with a decreasing subsidy associated with a higher diff.  Meaning this is Pro investor, and anti-pow-attack, which are both good investor features.  Therefore, up-front, we explain the effects of DGW for the sophisticated investor.  (Other coins use DGW, so we arent alone in this).  In our emission schedule wiki, I clearly point out that we base the emission on an average emission rate (that means we made an assumption of an average difficulty level). 


Its disturbing that you are not interpreting these basic fundamentals but instead continue to be argumentatitive, and frankly not trusting. 

We need a good team here, one that I can send information to and get things done efficiently and quickly - this is redicules Sun, and I think you are smart enough to know how redicules it is.  If you want make this community efficient I think you need to get with the program.

[sunk818]

Its disturbing that you are not interpreting these basic fundamentals but instead continue to be argumentatitive, and frankly not trusting.  

We need a good team here, one that I can send information to and get things done efficiently and quickly - this is redicules Sun, and I think you are smart enough to know how redicules it is.  If you want make this community efficient I think you need to get with the program.

I'm giving feedback from social media. They make a good points that BBP has "a way more complex structure than any other coin".  And that makes integration with people that want to create services more difficult. 1) We already saw this with Mintnodes, GIN, and Apollon where masternodes are more difficult to setup. 2) And now we have to explain to people why 3% PoBH isn't really 3%. And why PoDC 38.5% isn't really 38.5%.

[bible_pay]

Its disturbing that you are not interpreting these basic fundamentals but instead continue to be argumentatitive, and frankly not trusting.  

We need a good team here, one that I can send information to and get things done efficiently and quickly - this is redicules Sun, and I think you are smart enough to know how redicules it is.  If you want make this community efficient I think you need to get with the program.

I'm giving feedback from social media. They make a good points that BBP has "a way more complex structure than any other coin".  And that makes integration with people that want to create services more difficult. 1) We already saw this with Mintnodes, GIN, and Apollon where masternodes are more difficult to setup. 2) And now we have to explain to people why 3% PoBH isn't really 3%. And why PoDC 38.5% isn't really 38.5%.

I agree, its too complicated and needs cleaned up.  Lets take a look at simplifying this and figuring out if we need a vote to improve it.

The confusion lies in some numbers being based on gross, some on net, and some on superblock emission percentages (which is even worse, as those are based on a gross emission multiplier).

For POW though, we do pay .03% of the gross block to the heat miner.  Let me first modify the wiki page with exact gross and net expectations then we will go from there.

As far as the complexity of having DGW though, that in itself has more advantages than disadvantages, I think, so I think we need to clean up the explanation in the code and the wiki to make it crystal clear first (IE the system we have now).  We are only slightly more complicated in that area if it is explained properly.

I say this because our future is dependent on:  A gross subsidy, a governance budget, a sanctuary reward, and a mining reward - regardless of how you slice it, and if we had multiple paths for mining income - we just need to have a standard interface to ensure the % we state in every category is exact and gross or net, and an example next to it that reconciles.

Ill put an example up on this on our wiki page after this - let me do some gross/net calcs.

[thesnat21]

I agree, its too complicated and needs cleaned up.  Lets take a look at simplifying this and figuring out if we need a vote to improve it.

The confusion lies in some numbers being based on gross, some on net, and some on superblock emission percentages (which is even worse, as those are based on a gross emission multiplier).

For POW though, we do pay .03% of the gross block to the heat miner.  Let me first modify the wiki page with exact gross and net expectations then we will go from there.

As far as the complexity of having DGW though, that in itself has more advantages than disadvantages, I think, so I think we need to clean up the explanation in the code and the wiki to make it crystal clear first (IE the system we have now).  We are only slightly more complicated in that area if it is explained properly.

I say this because our future is dependent on:  A gross subsidy, a governance budget, a sanctuary reward, and a mining reward - regardless of how you slice it, and if we had multiple paths for mining income - we just need to have a standard interface to ensure the % we state in every category is exact and gross or net, and an example next to it that reconciles.

Ill put an example up on this on our wiki page after this - let me do some gross/net calcs.

I do agree with 616 on the sanc reward vs miner reward. 

Does DGW affect the daily superblock as well?  At least that way we're consistent.   

I have no problem with DGW on the POBH mining,  from a sanctuary perspective it seems strange to punish the sanctuary for potential abuses by the miner.

[thesnat21]

Submitted a pull request to add BBP's sporks to the "spork show" command

https://github.com/biblepay/biblepay/pull/45

[bible_pay]

I agree, its too complicated and needs cleaned up.  Lets take a look at simplifying this and figuring out if we need a vote to improve it.

The confusion lies in some numbers being based on gross, some on net, and some on superblock emission percentages (which is even worse, as those are based on a gross emission multiplier).

For POW though, we do pay .03% of the gross block to the heat miner.  Let me first modify the wiki page with exact gross and net expectations then we will go from there.

As far as the complexity of having DGW though, that in itself has more advantages than disadvantages, I think, so I think we need to clean up the explanation in the code and the wiki to make it crystal clear first (IE the system we have now).  We are only slightly more complicated in that area if it is explained properly.

I say this because our future is dependent on:  A gross subsidy, a governance budget, a sanctuary reward, and a mining reward - regardless of how you slice it, and if we had multiple paths for mining income - we just need to have a standard interface to ensure the % we state in every category is exact and gross or net, and an example next to it that reconciles.

Ill put an example up on this on our wiki page after this - let me do some gross/net calcs.

I do agree with 616 on the sanc reward vs miner reward. 

Does DGW affect the daily superblock as well?  At least that way we're consistent.   

I have no problem with DGW on the POBH mining,  from a sanctuary perspective it seems strange to punish the sanctuary for potential abuses by the miner.

No it's not intended to solely appear as an abuse by a heat miner, but instead, as a popularity governor.

The system is implemented in a way that says our total block emission drops as we become harder to mine - and the original idea with that is : biblepay is hard to mine because its price must be high (I realize this is not always true) but lets follow the logic.  If our price jumps from 9 satoshi to 90 for a couple weeks, we get an inrush of miners (because its profitable to mine).  However with that inrush comes a difficulty increase, and that lowers the reward.

So yes it is a governor to protect from a short term security standpoint but it is also a governor of our total emission due to popularity.

One reason I still like this is if we do become hard to mine (because of a high price) we tend to generate less coins - and therefore our price remains high.

[bible_pay]

Its disturbing that you are not interpreting these basic fundamentals but instead continue to be argumentatitive, and frankly not trusting.  

We need a good team here, one that I can send information to and get things done efficiently and quickly - this is redicules Sun, and I think you are smart enough to know how redicules it is.  If you want make this community efficient I think you need to get with the program.

I'm giving feedback from social media. They make a good points that BBP has "a way more complex structure than any other coin".  And that makes integration with people that want to create services more difficult. 1) We already saw this with Mintnodes, GIN, and Apollon where masternodes are more difficult to setup. 2) And now we have to explain to people why 3% PoBH isn't really 3%. And why PoDC 38.5% isn't really 38.5%.

I agree, its too complicated and needs cleaned up.  Lets take a look at simplifying this and figuring out if we need a vote to improve it.

The confusion lies in some numbers being based on gross, some on net, and some on superblock emission percentages (which is even worse, as those are based on a gross emission multiplier).

For POW though, we do pay .03% of the gross block to the heat miner.  Let me first modify the wiki page with exact gross and net expectations then we will go from there.

As far as the complexity of having DGW though, that in itself has more advantages than disadvantages, I think, so I think we need to clean up the explanation in the code and the wiki to make it crystal clear first (IE the system we have now).  We are only slightly more complicated in that area if it is explained properly.

I say this because our future is dependent on:  A gross subsidy, a governance budget, a sanctuary reward, and a mining reward - regardless of how you slice it, and if we had multiple paths for mining income - we just need to have a standard interface to ensure the % we state in every category is exact and gross or net, and an example next to it that reconciles.

Ill put an example up on this on our wiki page after this - let me do some gross/net calcs.

Ok we should be pretty clear now as far as our explanation to investors:



Economics revisited:
https://wiki.biblepay.org/Economics






I'll clean up some of the code comments to ensure they are consistent and not confusing.

[thesnat21]

No it's not intended to solely appear as an abuse by a heat miner, but instead, as a popularity governor.

The system is implemented in a way that says our total block emission drops as we become harder to mine - and the original idea with that is : biblepay is hard to mine because its price must be high (I realize this is not always true) but lets follow the logic.  If our price jumps from 9 satoshi to 90 for a couple weeks, we get an inrush of miners (because its profitable to mine).  However with that inrush comes a difficulty increase, and that lowers the reward.

So yes it is a governor to protect from a short term security standpoint but it is also a governor of our total emission due to popularity.

One reason I still like this is if we do become hard to mine (because of a high price) we tend to generate less coins - and therefore our price remains high.

This affects the 3% POBH and the 38.5% Sanc reward,  but not the PODC reward, if we follow this logic technically the same emission stifling should be in the PODC calculations as well.

If we are going to keep POBH separate,  I don't see the harm in doing the same for Masternode owners, these are folks committing 1.5mil to the cause of keeping BBP going.

Obviously nothing is changing today, but I think we should continue the discussion for the next mandatory.

[togoshigekata]

I'd also like your thoughts on eliminating coin mixing and private send which the more I speak to people that aren't involved with crypto, they bring up the Dark Web quite often.  This perception that the primary use the average person thinks of is so negative it could impact our growth in the intended religious markets.  Also, since it appears very few people are using it, eliminating it could simplify the code base without much penalty from current user demand.

In the end, I don't want to make a proposal on something you're opposed to as I know you've got a lot on your plate and there is plenty of work.

I really like the proposal of 616west to remove the coin mixing/private send. I tried mixing for months and never really got it to work with BBP (right now I still only have a little over 3k mixed coins; with other coins this is working much better ...). Additionally, if anyone really wants to have "privacy" he can and should revert to the plethora of "cryptonight"-coins. Not to mention the fact that I don't deem it an appropriate (or necessary) feature for a Christian coin.

I think you have a good point on this elimination of private send and mixing, possibly.  I want us to be known as having 100% integrity, and know that using BiblePay they are still 100% anonymous if they wish to use TOR themselves - share no data and use nicknames.  Another words, I dont want to introduce things that reveals home identities to make people feel unsafe, but I would also want a coin with the highest level of integrity, so that we are not associated in any way with the dark web. I also feel that from Togos experience of mixing - we may be enabling a feature that slows down the wallet if people start using it widely (as Dave_bbp pointed out ours isnt working well).  We could potentially remove it from the UI completely and make it a 'use at your own risk' RPC feature, something for a power user like Togo, but take the stance that we dont support the feature, and we dont add features to the wallet that make you lose privacy (unless you use them, like for instance adding your long/lat and email to a contact record yourself).  The privacy issue is tough because as a Christian you have to be a stand up non-shady individual, and thats why I ended up offering the long-lat, as if things get bad (on a civil unrest level),  we at least want to organize Christian camps of people together, and as a church pastor, you must publically expose where your church is so people can worship in person (IE church tithing).  However, a single Mom may not want to expose her long-lat, with good reason.  (Its also related to timing, were obviously not in the great tribulation yet .

https://www.bitcoindesigned.com/infographics/privacy-and-bitcoin/

[togoshigekata]

This Week In Dash: October 1-6
https://www.dashforcenews.com/this-week-in-dash-october-1-6/

Dash Force News on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/dashforcenews

[dzkrb]

Just saw information about the Islamic Exchange, here is a bible project. By the way, do you mean the old or the new covenant? Why are projects now being created that limit investors by religion?

[bible_pay]

Just saw information about the Islamic Exchange, here is a bible project. By the way, do you mean the old or the new covenant? Why are projects now being created that limit investors by religion?

In general, everyone is welcome to use biblepay as a utility.  We also have cancer mining, which is more aligned with science.

But in general, by having the KJV bible compiled in we are exposing our users to Christianity.  So this is an attempt to spread the gospel of Jesus to people who might not be thinking about God.

We are not forcing the New Testament to be read by anyone, but in general I'm trying to spearhead an ecosystem where Jesus is part of our daily lives and that would include the old and new Testament.

[sunk818]

Anyone missing unbanked ARM payment for 10/5 and 10/6? Last two days I have not been paid for PoDC work.